Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1461 to 1480 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) expressly accepted the returned income and made no addition or disallowance, the computation sheet could not override the assessment order. Once the regular assessment was completed, the earlier intimation under section 143(1) merged into it and lost independent existence, so the Assessing Officer could not rely on that earlier adjustment to justify a higher assessed income. The Tribunal further held that revising total income on these facts was not a mistake apparent from the record but a substantive re-determination of income, making section 154 unavailable. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable and the income had to remain as determined in the scrutiny assessment.
Where a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) expressly accepted the returned income and made no addition or disallowance, the computation sheet could not override the assessment order. Once the regular assessment was completed, the earlier intimation under section 143(1) merged into it and lost independent existence, so the Assessing Officer could not rely on that earlier adjustment to justify a higher assessed income. The Tribunal further held that revising total income on these facts was not a mistake apparent from the record but a substantive re-determination of income, making section 154 unavailable. The rectification order was therefore unsustainable and the income had to remain as determined in the scrutiny assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.