Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessing officer failed to verify the assessee's suo motu disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income and did not test the prescribed computation method or examine a third party report; outcome: revision sustained and relief denied. The tribunal accepted that the AO overlooked available intelligence indicating receipt of accommodation entries, attracting deeming provisions and negating the assessee's claim; outcome: section 263 action valid. The decision relied on precedent on strategic investment exclusion and the duty of the AO to make inquiries, and confirmed the revisional order against the assessee.
Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessing officer failed to verify the assessee's suo motu disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income and did not test the prescribed computation method or examine a third party report; outcome: revision sustained and relief denied. The tribunal accepted that the AO overlooked available intelligence indicating receipt of accommodation entries, attracting deeming provisions and negating the assessee's claim; outcome: section 263 action valid. The decision relied on precedent on strategic investment exclusion and the duty of the AO to make inquiries, and confirmed the revisional order against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
