Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of a scrutiny assessment conducted by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. It was held that only the Assessing Officer (AO) has the authority to conduct a scrutiny assessment and pass the assessment order. The Addl. CIT can exercise AO's powers only if authorized under section 120(4)(b) of the Act, which was not demonstrated in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue must provide evidence of such authorization. The Tribunal also clarified that the time limit for challenging the jurisdiction of the AO does not apply when the action is deemed to be without authority of law. As no separate orders were passed authorizing the Addl. CIT and no jurisdiction transfer order was issued, the assessment order was deemed to be without jurisdiction and was set aside, resulting in the appeal being allowed in favor of the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the validity of a scrutiny assessment conducted by an Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Addl. CIT) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act. It was held that only the Assessing Officer (AO) has the authority to conduct a scrutiny assessment and pass the assessment order. The Addl. CIT can exercise AO's powers only if authorized under section 120(4)(b) of the Act, which was not demonstrated in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue must provide evidence of such authorization. The Tribunal also clarified that the time limit for challenging the jurisdiction of the AO does not apply when the action is deemed to be without authority of law. As no separate orders were passed authorizing the Addl. CIT and no jurisdiction transfer order was issued, the assessment order was deemed to be without jurisdiction and was set aside, resulting in the appeal being allowed in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.