Fraudulently obtained SEIS scrips cannot support customs exemption; recovery, confiscation and penalties were sustained, but employee penalty fell awa...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5001 to 5020 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was examined: the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue were not met because the Assessing Officer issued detailed queries, obtained submissions and documents, and applied his mind before accepting returned income. Explanation 2(a) did not apply as inquiries were made. Clause (d) of Explanation 2 could not be invoked since the AO adopted a plausible view supported by High Court precedents and the Supreme Court decision relied on was distinguishable on its facts. The Tribunal set aside the Principal Commissioner's revision order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was examined: the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue were not met because the Assessing Officer issued detailed queries, obtained submissions and documents, and applied his mind before accepting returned income. Explanation 2(a) did not apply as inquiries were made. Clause (d) of Explanation 2 could not be invoked since the AO adopted a plausible view supported by High Court precedents and the Supreme Court decision relied on was distinguishable on its facts. The Tribunal set aside the Principal Commissioner's revision order and allowed the assessee's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.