https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756351 The Delhi HC allowed writ petitions challenging assessment orders where the AO refused to accept revised returns enhancing declared income based on liaison office activities and sales to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The AO rejected declarations citing that granting relief would reduce taxable income below the threshold declared in original returns. The HC held that while assessees are ordinarily bound by their returns, when the Tribunal admits a question and accords relief, this cannot be denied or made subject to return revision requirements. Relying on Wipro Finance Ltd. SC judgment, the court ruled that insistence on return revision as precondition fails to consider plenary powers conferred on Tribunal under Section 254. The HC quashed assessment orders dated 30 November 2021 and directed AO to consider additional grounds afresh, also quashing consequential demand and penalty notices. en-us Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jul 2024 10:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756351 The Delhi HC allowed writ petitions challenging assessment orders where the AO refused to accept revised returns enhancing declared income based on liaison office activities and sales to Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The AO rejected declarations citing that granting relief would reduce taxable income below the threshold declared in original returns. The HC held that while assessees are ordinarily bound by their returns, when the Tribunal admits a question and accords relief, this cannot be denied or made subject to return revision requirements. Relying on Wipro Finance Ltd. SC judgment, the court ruled that insistence on return revision as precondition fails to consider plenary powers conferred on Tribunal under Section 254. The HC quashed assessment orders dated 30 November 2021 and directed AO to consider additional grounds afresh, also quashing consequential demand and penalty notices. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756351