Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Rectification u/s 154 - Transfer pricing adjustments - The assessee carried the matter on appeal to the Tribunal and once again, the assessee never raised any contention with regard to the validity of the notice dated 28.03.2006. Thus, considering this factual situation, we are of the clear view that the present attempt of the assessee is not tenable and accordingly rejected. - The assessment order dated 28.02.2006 is an order u/s 143(3) and not an order u/s 92C(3) of the Act. - The argument of the assessee before us is that the Assessing Officer has exercised jurisdiction u/s 92C(3) and the TPO parallely cannot exercise his power u/s92CA. On facts, the assessee is wrong. - HC
Rectification u/s 154 - Transfer pricing adjustments - The assessee carried the matter on appeal to the Tribunal and once again, the assessee never raised any contention with regard to the validity of the notice dated 28.03.2006. Thus, considering this factual situation, we are of the clear view that the present attempt of the assessee is not tenable and accordingly rejected. - The assessment order dated 28.02.2006 is an order u/s 143(3) and not an order u/s 92C(3) of the Act. - The argument of the assessee before us is that the Assessing Officer has exercised jurisdiction u/s 92C(3) and the TPO parallely cannot exercise his power u/s92CA. On facts, the assessee is wrong. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
