Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable because the Assessing Officer had properly examined the relevant material, accepted the assessee's project completion method, and adopted one permissible view on the taxability of on-money from the Spring-II project. The Court reiterated that revision is available only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; a mere difference of opinion cannot justify interference where enquiries were made and the view taken was plausible. No material showed that the amount was taxable in the relevant assessment year, so the appeal was dismissed and no substantial question of law arose.
Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable because the Assessing Officer had properly examined the relevant material, accepted the assessee's project completion method, and adopted one permissible view on the taxability of on-money from the Spring-II project. The Court reiterated that revision is available only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; a mere difference of opinion cannot justify interference where enquiries were made and the view taken was plausible. No material showed that the amount was taxable in the relevant assessment year, so the appeal was dismissed and no substantial question of law arose.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
