Revision u/s 264 - whether benefit of Section 54F could be ...

Income Tax

February 10, 2017

Revision u/s 264 - whether benefit of Section 54F could be granted when it was originally not claimed during the assessment proceedings - there is no bar in the grant of the relief despite the assessee apparently having missed the bus and having committed the mistake - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Revision u/s 264 - whether benefit of Section 54F could be ...

Income Tax

February 10, 2017

You may also like:

Revision petition u/s. 264 - disallowance of carry forward of loss to subsequent years - CIT while disposing of the 264 petition of the assessee, had clearly directed...

Entitled to claim deduction u/s 10 (10 C) (viii) and also under Section 89 (1) - amounts received as part of VRS - claim came to be rejected on the basis of the...

Reopening of assessment - bogus claim of depreciation - the assessee is guilty of fraud and has perpetuated fraud todefraud the revenue - no relief can be granted.

Exemption u/s 54F - merging of 4 flats originally planed into one unit - exemption allowed - AT

Revision u/s 264 - Petitioners after dismissal of the earlier petition by this Court against the same assessment order without filing any statutory Appeal before the CIT...

Approval of resolution plan - proceeding for liquidation of the company after non-compliance of approved resolution plan - Relief granted further 30 days given to make...

Validity of Revision u/s 264 - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Whether revision under Section 264 of the 1961 Act is an alternate remedy to the remedy of regular...

Maintainability of writ petition - Time-barred petition – Writ proceedings are not for the purpose of granting extension of time - HC

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

Revision petition u/s 264 by assessee - Claiming to act as a collection agent for borewell digging payments, the petitioner argued that the income was exaggerated and...

Quick Updates: