Genuineness of investment evidence determines LTCG entitlement; non specific regulatory reports cannot displace transaction specific documentary proof...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5881 to 5900 of 96301 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 where the Assessing Officer had already initiated penalty proceedings, because the revisional authority could not invoke section 263 merely to substitute the penalty provision under which those proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal found that, once penalty action had been commenced, the assessment order could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on this ground alone. The foundation of the revisional order was therefore legally untenable, and the assessee succeeded.
Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had already initiated penalty proceedings, because the revisional authority could not invoke section 263 merely to substitute the penalty provision under which those proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal found that, once penalty action had been commenced, the assessment order could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on this ground alone. The foundation of the revisional order was therefore legally untenable, and the assessee succeeded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.