Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that revision under section 263 was not justified because the AO had made adequate enquiry on cash sales, cash deposits, opening stock and purchases, and the assessee had furnished replies and records during assessment. The Tribunal found no lack of enquiry and held that the Principal Commissioner could not invoke revision merely to substitute a different view on the same material. Applying the principle that section 263 requires both error and prejudice to revenue, and that revision is unavailable where two plausible views exist, the Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders and allowed all three appeals.
ITAT held that revision under section 263 was not justified because the AO had made adequate enquiry on cash sales, cash deposits, opening stock and purchases, and the assessee had furnished replies and records during assessment. The Tribunal found no lack of enquiry and held that the Principal Commissioner could not invoke revision merely to substitute a different view on the same material. Applying the principle that section 263 requires both error and prejudice to revenue, and that revision is unavailable where two plausible views exist, the Tribunal quashed the revisionary orders and allowed all three appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
