Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 of 96177 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 
