Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 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 challenged on grounds that the assessing officer erred by accepting a registered valuer's report without referral to the Departmental Valuation Officer; the Tribunal found the AO had applied his mind, examined and verified valuation and adopted a tenable view, so the Pr. CIT's contrary opinion amounted to a post-view. Applying the twin-condition test, the Tribunal held lack of referral or disagreement with the valuer did not establish the assessment was erroneous in law, and therefore the requirements for revision were not satisfied; Pr. CIT's revision order was set aside and the assessment upheld.
Revision under section 263 was challenged on grounds that the assessing officer erred by accepting a registered valuer's report without referral to the Departmental Valuation Officer; the Tribunal found the AO had applied his mind, examined and verified valuation and adopted a tenable view, so the Pr. CIT's contrary opinion amounted to a post-view. Applying the twin-condition test, the Tribunal held lack of referral or disagreement with the valuer did not establish the assessment was erroneous in law, and therefore the requirements for revision were not satisfied; Pr. CIT's revision order was set aside and the assessment upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
