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 issue of reopening assessment u/s 147 based on the belief that the investment in a property was from undisclosed income. However, the assessee provided evidence that the investment was from disclosed sources. The AO did not challenge this but made an independent addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) for the property's valuation difference. The Tribunal held that since the AO did not question the source of investment, he lacked jurisdiction to make the additional assessment. The AO's order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was deemed invalid, and the appeal was allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the issue of reopening assessment u/s 147 based on the belief that the investment in a property was from undisclosed income. However, the assessee provided evidence that the investment was from disclosed sources. The AO did not challenge this but made an independent addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) for the property's valuation difference. The Tribunal held that since the AO did not question the source of investment, he lacked jurisdiction to make the additional assessment. The AO's order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was deemed invalid, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.