Home Highlights February 2013 Year 2013 This

You may also like:

1. Revision u/s 264 - application for revision was rejected because it was not accompanied by the requisite fee of Rs.500/- An opportunity should be given to cure the same - HC

2. Section 264 revision application concerning long-term capital gain (LTCG) on extinguishment of shares due to loss arising from NCLT order. Petitioner's claim for loss on...

3. Revision of other orders u/s 264 - petitioners sought to expressly withdraw the revision petition filed u/s 264 - application was pending for decision - Thus by not...

4. Maintainability of wrt petition before HC where option for filing Revision u/s 264 is available - Rejection of Refund of excess amount paid as tax - There are no...

5. The petitioner filed a refund application within the two-year limitation period for the year 2017-2018 on 17.09.2018, and subsequently filed a fresh refund application...

6. Revision Petition filed u/s 264 of the order passed by AO u/s 270AA(4) - The provision does not provide for any bar or prohibition against the assessee challenging an...

7. Revision u/s 264 in favor of assessee - CIT rejected the application - Petitioner has not filed the revised returns u/s 139(5) of the Act but he has admitted to an...

8. Revision u/s 264 - seeking direction to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for deduction u/s 80-IA - there is no limitation on the power of the Pr. CCIT, CCIT, CIT...

9. Revision u/s 264 - Claiming benefit of DTAA - refund of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) which was paid wrongly - This was not a case where a deduction was made u/s 195...

10. Refund claim - Once an application of refund has been filed before the refund sanctioning authority, the said authority is duty bound to decide the refund application...

11. Revision u/s 264 - computation of income from capital gains - Although, there is a detailed discussion with regard to the nature of the transaction, as to whether it is...

12. Revision application u/s 264 was initially rejected due to non-payment of mandatory fee of Rs. 500. However, the petitioner paid the fee immediately upon objection...

13. Reasonable cause for the delay in filing the revision application before the CIT under Section 264 - HC

14. Addition u/s 68 - The Tribunal not only took note of the legal position but also the factual position. The Tribunal held that the legal effect after amalgamation of the...

15. The petitioner incurred expenditure towards application of income as required u/s 11(1)(d) for the year under consideration, which was evident from the computation of...