Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1541 to 1560 of 96406 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 4821 
Join Channel 
