Search and seizure: abatement of earlier search bars use of prior seized material in later search-based assessments; relief limited to new documents f...
Admission of additional evidence under remand rules must await a meaningful remand report; failure to do so breaches natural justice and mandates rema...
Revision under Section 263 was held vitiated where the revisional opinion reallocating R&D expenditure to eligible undertakings rested on presumption and conjecture rather than concrete evidence; the Assessing Officer had conducted a full enquiry and permissibly allowed the R&D deduction. The Tribunal found the revisionary exercise to be materially influenced by an audit objection and not an independent satisfaction, quashed the revision order and restored the assessment order of the AO, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Revision under Section 263 was held vitiated where the revisional opinion reallocating R&D expenditure to eligible undertakings rested on presumption and conjecture rather than concrete evidence; the Assessing Officer had conducted a full enquiry and permissibly allowed the R&D deduction. The Tribunal found the revisionary exercise to be materially influenced by an audit objection and not an independent satisfaction, quashed the revision order and restored the assessment order of the AO, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.