Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Objective characteristics govern magnesium bis-glycinate chelate classification as an amino-acid coordination compound, not a food preparation or anti...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reasons to believe - The High Court examined the submissions and found that the notice for reopening the assessment lacked jurisdiction. It noted that the reasons for reopening were not based on any fresh material but were already considered during the regular assessment process. Additionally, the Court highlighted that reopening the assessment solely on the basis of audit party objections was invalid. Moreover, the Court agreed with the petitioner's argument regarding the applicability of MAT provisions, stating that even if there were additions to income under normal provisions, it would not impact the MAT computation significantly. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no escapement of income under normal provisions.
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reasons to believe - The High Court examined the submissions and found that the notice for reopening the assessment lacked jurisdiction. It noted that the reasons for reopening were not based on any fresh material but were already considered during the regular assessment process. Additionally, the Court highlighted that reopening the assessment solely on the basis of audit party objections was invalid. Moreover, the Court agreed with the petitioner's argument regarding the applicability of MAT provisions, stating that even if there were additions to income under normal provisions, it would not impact the MAT computation significantly. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no escapement of income under normal provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.