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...
ITAT held that revision under section 263 was unsustainable because the DPCO liability for the relevant year had already been treated as an ascertained liability, and the Assessing Officer's acceptance of that position was a plausible view. The revisional authority proceeded on an factual premise, assuming the DPCO dispute had been settled by the Supreme Court and treating the amounts as bank guarantees, whereas the dispute remained pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court proceeding concerned a different matter. As the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the revisional order was set aside and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
ITAT held that revision under section 263 was unsustainable because the DPCO liability for the relevant year had already been treated as an ascertained liability, and the Assessing Officer's acceptance of that position was a plausible view. The revisional authority proceeded on an factual premise, assuming the DPCO dispute had been settled by the Supreme Court and treating the amounts as bank guarantees, whereas the dispute remained pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court proceeding concerned a different matter. As the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the revisional order was set aside and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.