Imported cement concessional duty exemption under Notification 4/2006 challenged over RSP misdeclaration; demand, interest and s.114A penalty set asid...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7301 to 7320 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4817 
Join Channel 
