Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Observations in an earlier judgment on assessment against an amalgamated entity were only a clarification that the Revenue must act in accordance with law; they did not constitute a finding or direction under sections 150 and 153(6). Applying Rajinder Nath, the Court held that only a finding necessary for disposal of the case can trigger those provisions, and the Revenue could not use the prior judgment to extend jurisdiction. The proviso to section 143(2) continued to apply in the second round, so scrutiny notices issued beyond the prescribed limitation were jurisdiction and could not sustain assessment proceedings against the successor company. The impugned notices and proceedings were quashed.
Observations in an earlier judgment on assessment against an amalgamated entity were only a clarification that the Revenue must act in accordance with law; they did not constitute a finding or direction under sections 150 and 153(6). Applying Rajinder Nath, the Court held that only a finding necessary for disposal of the case can trigger those provisions, and the Revenue could not use the prior judgment to extend jurisdiction. The proviso to section 143(2) continued to apply in the second round, so scrutiny notices issued beyond the prescribed limitation were jurisdiction and could not sustain assessment proceedings against the successor company. The impugned notices and proceedings were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.