Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6221 to 6240 of 96365 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 unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had examined the assessee's accumulation claim, Form No. 10, board resolutions and utilisation particulars, and had adopted a possible view on the material before him. The Commissioner could not invoke revision merely because he wanted deeper verification or considered another view preferable; absent independent demonstration that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the exercise amounted to an impermissible fishing enquiry. The Court also held that Explanation 2 to section 263 could not be applied without prior notice to the assessee. The alleged tax consequence of non-utilisation of accumulated income did not arise in the relevant assessment year.
Revision under section 263 was unwarranted where the Assessing Officer had examined the assessee's accumulation claim, Form No. 10, board resolutions and utilisation particulars, and had adopted a possible view on the material before him. The Commissioner could not invoke revision merely because he wanted deeper verification or considered another view preferable; absent independent demonstration that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, the exercise amounted to an impermissible fishing enquiry. The Court also held that Explanation 2 to section 263 could not be applied without prior notice to the assessee. The alleged tax consequence of non-utilisation of accumulated income did not arise in the relevant assessment year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
