S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Derivative loss – Setting a side of order without giving any finding was held to be bad in law [ S.43(5) ]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Derivative loss – Setting a side of order without giving any finding was held to be bad in law [ S.43(5) ]
S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Even if there is lack of inquiry by the AO and the assessment order is “erroneous” under Explanation 2 to s. 263, the order is not “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” [ S. 2(43),40(a)(v)115JB]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Source of capital contribution was explained – Source of the source cannot be gone in to – Revision was held to be bad in law [ S. 68 ]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Income from letting out shops – Income from house property or business income – Two views possible – Revision was held to be not valid
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Enhancement of agricultural income -Failure to make proper enquiry by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings , revision was held to be valid – Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional evidence which was filed by the revenue [ S. 254(1) ]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Gift- Conclusion drawn by Assessing Officer was consistent with information provided by donors therefore revision was held to be not valid .[ S. 68 ]
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Mere change of opinion revision was held to be not valid. [ S. 54B ]
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Ex parte order can be recalled if sufficient cause shown [ S. 260A(7), 263, 68 , Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.XLI , r. 21. ]
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Strictures passed against Dept’s Advocate for “most unreasonable attitude” of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues and not following the judicial discipline and law of precedents – Infrastructure facility – – Container freight station ( CFS) is eligible deduction as an infrastructure facility [ S.80IA ]
S.260A: Appeal -High Court- Mesne profit – Capital or revenue -Dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the department has not filed an appeal against the Judgement of special Bench was held to be not justified – High Court was directed to hear the appeal on merits [ S.4 ]