Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Audit report-based adjustment was permissible in prima facie processing where Clause 21(h) of Form 3CD disclosed a quantified section 14A disallowance not fully reflected in the return, because the amended processing provision allows such a limited adjustment; the jurisdictional challenge therefore failed for A.Y. 2022-23. Rectification that later enhanced liability on the same issue was invalid for A.Y. 2021-22, because section 154 requires notice, a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and proper consideration of the assessee's reply before increasing liability. On merits, the section 14A disallowance for both years was restricted to the amount already offered, since part of the reported figure had already been disallowed in computation and a larger disallowance could not be made without the required recorded dissatisfaction.
Audit report-based adjustment was permissible in prima facie processing where Clause 21(h) of Form 3CD disclosed a quantified section 14A disallowance not fully reflected in the return, because the amended processing provision allows such a limited adjustment; the jurisdictional challenge therefore failed for A.Y. 2022-23. Rectification that later enhanced liability on the same issue was invalid for A.Y. 2021-22, because section 154 requires notice, a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and proper consideration of the assessee's reply before increasing liability. On merits, the section 14A disallowance for both years was restricted to the amount already offered, since part of the reported figure had already been disallowed in computation and a larger disallowance could not be made without the required recorded dissatisfaction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.