https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83531 The High Court held that the petitioner, a Director in the Government of Meghalaya's Department of Soil, who claimed exemption from income tax u/s 10(26) as a member of a scheduled tribe, should avail the structured remedy provided by the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that as a writ court, it should not exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon highly disputed facts involving voluminous evidence. The petitioner had filed an application for revision u/s 264 for the assessment year 2014-15, which she allegedly withdrew on June 9, 2022. The court set aside the alleged withdrawal and directed the income tax authorities to treat the Section 264 application as pending, hear the petitioner, respondent No. 9, and other interested parties, an..... en-us Sat, 30 Nov 2024 08:41:56 +0530 Sat, 30 Nov 2024 08:41:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83531 The High Court held that the petitioner, a Director in the Government of Meghalaya's Department of Soil, who claimed exemption from income tax u/s 10(26) as a member of a scheduled tribe, should avail the structured remedy provided by the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court found that as a writ court, it should not exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate upon highly disputed facts involving voluminous evidence. The petitioner had filed an application for revision u/s 264 for the assessment year 2014-15, which she allegedly withdrew on June 9, 2022. The court set aside the alleged withdrawal and directed the income tax authorities to treat the Section 264 application as pending, hear the petitioner, respondent No. 9, and other interested parties, an..... Highlights Income Tax Sat, 30 Nov 2024 08:41:56 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83531