Proceeds of crime and money laundering: PMLA prosecution requires subsisting predicate offence; discharge of predicate accused precludes further prose...
Validity of faceless assessment procedure challenged for jurisdictional AO intervention mid-remand, resulting in quashing of assessment for procedural...
Revisional powers under Section 264 were held to be broad and aimed at preventing miscarriage of justice and granting relief to an assessee even where the assessee committed mistakes in the original return; consequently the revision application should have been considered and the impugned order under Section 264 was set aside. The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd., finding it inapplicable because that case did not address revisional powers under Section 264 but concerned a post filing deduction without a revised return.
Revisional powers under Section 264 were held to be broad and aimed at preventing miscarriage of justice and granting relief to an assessee even where the assessee committed mistakes in the original return; consequently the revision application should have been considered and the impugned order under Section 264 was set aside. The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd., finding it inapplicable because that case did not address revisional powers under Section 264 but concerned a post filing deduction without a revised return.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.