Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Faceless reassessment under the IT Act was challenged on the ground that the notice under section 148 had to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer and not the jurisdictional officer for alleged non-compliance with section 151A. Without deciding that merits question, the Court directed revival of the pending appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), permitted the petitioner to raise all grounds including limitation, stayed operation of the assessment order during the appeal, and ordered expeditious disposal.
Faceless reassessment under the IT Act was challenged on the ground that the notice under section 148 had to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer and not the jurisdictional officer for alleged non-compliance with section 151A. Without deciding that merits question, the Court directed revival of the pending appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), permitted the petitioner to raise all grounds including limitation, stayed operation of the assessment order during the appeal, and ordered expeditious disposal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.