Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1341 to 1360 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Delhi High Court examined the validity of an order passed u/s 92CA and jurisdiction to pass an assessment order post-limitation period. The court held that once the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) passed an order in accordance with ITAT directions, the Assessing Officer (AO) was obligated to pass an assessment order within nine months. The court found that the AO's failure to do so rendered a subsequent reference to the TPO unwarranted. The court emphasized that the ITAT directions did not require a fresh reference, and the AO's actions were legally unjustified. The court concluded that the AO was barred from passing further assessment orders for the relevant assessment year, granting relief to the petitioner.
The Delhi High Court examined the validity of an order passed u/s 92CA and jurisdiction to pass an assessment order post-limitation period. The court held that once the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) passed an order in accordance with ITAT directions, the Assessing Officer (AO) was obligated to pass an assessment order within nine months. The court found that the AO's failure to do so rendered a subsequent reference to the TPO unwarranted. The court emphasized that the ITAT directions did not require a fresh reference, and the AO's actions were legally unjustified. The court concluded that the AO was barred from passing further assessment orders for the relevant assessment year, granting relief to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
