Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Section 249(4)(b) could not be used to reject the quantum appeal where the record did not show taxable income in India and, on the assessee's consistent case, no obligation to pay advance tax arose. The Tribunal noted that the addition stemmed only from an unexplained source of investment in immovable property, not from returned or admitted income. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. The quantum matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity, and the consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also restored for fresh consideration.
Section 249(4)(b) could not be used to reject the quantum appeal where the record did not show taxable income in India and, on the assessee's consistent case, no obligation to pay advance tax arose. The Tribunal noted that the addition stemmed only from an unexplained source of investment in immovable property, not from returned or admitted income. The Commissioner (Appeals) therefore erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. The quantum matter was restored to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after due opportunity, and the consequential penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also restored for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
