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 High Court examined the validity of reassessment proceedings regarding the treatment of certain expenditures as capital expenditure. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had already perused the books of accounts and formed a view that the expenses were revenue in nature, not capital. The Court also noted that during the initial assessment, the Assessing Officer independently analyzed the relevant materials provided by the petitioner. The Court highlighted that the reasons for reopening the case were based on the Audit Party's objections and not new facts. It emphasized that a change of opinion cannot be a valid reason for reassessment. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the reassessment was an attempt to revive an issue already addressed in the original assessment, rendering it unjustified.
The High Court examined the validity of reassessment proceedings regarding the treatment of certain expenditures as capital expenditure. The Court found that the Assessing Officer had already perused the books of accounts and formed a view that the expenses were revenue in nature, not capital. The Court also noted that during the initial assessment, the Assessing Officer independently analyzed the relevant materials provided by the petitioner. The Court highlighted that the reasons for reopening the case were based on the Audit Party's objections and not new facts. It emphasized that a change of opinion cannot be a valid reason for reassessment. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the reassessment was an attempt to revive an issue already addressed in the original assessment, rendering it unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
