Approved gratuity fund provisions remain deductible despite general actual-payment requirements, preventing revision of the allowed gratuity deduction...
Verification of intangible software expenditure and duplicated disallowances requires record-based reassessment before depreciation and income computa...
Cash receipt aggregation requires a single transaction, event or occasion; separate partner capital contributions cannot attract cash-receipt penaltie...
Page of 4923
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 98455 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The issue concerns whether an Assessing Officer may rely on a Valuation Officer (DVO) report delivered after the six month deadline in section 142A(6) to invoke the exclusion period under Explanation 1(v) to section 153 and thereby extend limitation. The HC agreed with the Tribunal that section 142A(6) requires the report within six months and that the exclusion-period and its proviso apply only where the report falls within that regime; a belated DVO report has no legal value to extend limitation, and the Principal Commissioner was not justified in revising the assessment under revision powers. Revenue appeal dismissed.
The issue concerns whether an Assessing Officer may rely on a Valuation Officer (DVO) report delivered after the six month deadline in section 142A(6) to invoke the exclusion period under Explanation 1(v) to section 153 and thereby extend limitation. The HC agreed with the Tribunal that section 142A(6) requires the report within six months and that the exclusion-period and its proviso apply only where the report falls within that regime; a belated DVO report has no legal value to extend limitation, and the Principal Commissioner was not justified in revising the assessment under revision powers. Revenue appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
