Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1721 to 1740 of 96510 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 challenged the validity of an exemption claim under section 54 on grounds that the assessing officer failed to examine supporting materials; tribunal found the AO had issued a specific query under section 142(1), the assessee uploaded conveyance deed and supporting evidence in response, and assessment followed that examination. Consequently the reassessment order under section 263 was not sustainable because the assessment was not shown to be erroneous or prejudicial where relevant details were on record and considered. Reliance was placed on prior judicial authority supporting that record-based examination negates the ground for revision.
Revision under section 263 challenged the validity of an exemption claim under section 54 on grounds that the assessing officer failed to examine supporting materials; tribunal found the AO had issued a specific query under section 142(1), the assessee uploaded conveyance deed and supporting evidence in response, and assessment followed that examination. Consequently the reassessment order under section 263 was not sustainable because the assessment was not shown to be erroneous or prejudicial where relevant details were on record and considered. Reliance was placed on prior judicial authority supporting that record-based examination negates the ground for revision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
