Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
