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...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96333 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 4817 
Join Channel 
