Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 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 (ITAT) considered the issue of the validity of assessment u/s 153A due to the lack of valid approval u/s 153D. It was alleged that the approving authority did not apply their mind properly. The ITAT held that the approving authority must examine relevant material in detail before granting approval u/s 153D, as it is a mandatory requirement and not meant to be given mechanically. In this case, the approval was granted hastily without proper examination of the material, vitiating the assessment orders. The AO claimed the case was related to a search action u/s 132. The ITAT found that the approving authority did not adequately review the evidence, documents, and statements before granting approval, leading to a decision in favor of the assessee.
The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the issue of the validity of assessment u/s 153A due to the lack of valid approval u/s 153D. It was alleged that the approving authority did not apply their mind properly. The ITAT held that the approving authority must examine relevant material in detail before granting approval u/s 153D, as it is a mandatory requirement and not meant to be given mechanically. In this case, the approval was granted hastily without proper examination of the material, vitiating the assessment orders. The AO claimed the case was related to a search action u/s 132. The ITAT found that the approving authority did not adequately review the evidence, documents, and statements before granting approval, leading to a decision in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.