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 appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment after the expiry of 30 days from the date of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The questions pertain to whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the assessment order despite the assessee's participation in the proceedings without raising the jurisdictional issue within the time limit u/s 124(3)(a), and whether the Tribunal's order is perverse for ignoring the ratio laid down in DCIT (Exemption) Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, wherein Section 124(3) precludes the assessee from questioning the AO's jurisdiction if not invoked within the specified time frame. The appellant is directed to file requisite documents, and service of notice on the respondent's advocates is waived.
The appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment after the expiry of 30 days from the date of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The questions pertain to whether the Tribunal was justified in quashing the assessment order despite the assessee's participation in the proceedings without raising the jurisdictional issue within the time limit u/s 124(3)(a), and whether the Tribunal's order is perverse for ignoring the ratio laid down in DCIT (Exemption) Vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, wherein Section 124(3) precludes the assessee from questioning the AO's jurisdiction if not invoked within the specified time frame. The appellant is directed to file requisite documents, and service of notice on the respondent's advocates is waived.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.