Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 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" ?
Consequential assessment orders allowing verified purchase expenditure in full bind the Department, leaving it without an aggrieved claim against the allowance. Where an earlier remand required fresh inquiry into allegedly unsubstantiated or inflated purchases, the Assessing Officer's subsequent verification and full acceptance of the claims rendered the surviving purchase-disallowance controversy infructuous. A favourable remand report, and more strongly a consequential assessment order, prevents the Department from contesting the allowance. The purchase disallowances partly sustained at first appeal were therefore deleted fully, the assessee's appeals succeeded on this issue, and the corresponding Revenue grounds failed.
Consequential assessment orders allowing verified purchase expenditure in full bind the Department, leaving it without an aggrieved claim against the allowance. Where an earlier remand required fresh inquiry into allegedly unsubstantiated or inflated purchases, the Assessing Officer's subsequent verification and full acceptance of the claims rendered the surviving purchase-disallowance controversy infructuous. A favourable remand report, and more strongly a consequential assessment order, prevents the Department from contesting the allowance. The purchase disallowances partly sustained at first appeal were therefore deleted fully, the assessee's appeals succeeded on this issue, and the corresponding Revenue grounds failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.