Transfer pricing comparability requires functional alignment, reliable financial data, and careful review of working capital and receivables adjustmen...
Transfer pricing rules require benchmarking corporate guarantees and associated-enterprise advances, while invalid domestic-transaction adjustments ca...
Prospective sugar export prohibition required registered letters of credit; private contracts and export quotas created no enforceable continuation ri...
Retroactive interim-moratorium exclusion permits protective asset disclosure and preservation measures against personal guarantors pending arbitration...
Assessee, a non-resident Indian residing outside India for over 25 years, challenged the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2), Ajmer to issue notice u/s 148 for reassessment proceedings. Evidence showed assessee's residential status as NRI on the date of notice issuance. Faceless Assessment Unit also acknowledged the case pertained to a non-resident individual, requiring assessment at the international charge. ITAT held ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer lacked jurisdiction when issuing the notice on 30.03.2022, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Additionally, the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the entire sale consideration as Long Term Capital Gain without considering the original cost and evidence provided by the assessee, resulting in a perverse order, which ITAT quashed.
Assessee, a non-resident Indian residing outside India for over 25 years, challenged the jurisdiction of Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 2(2), Ajmer to issue notice u/s 148 for reassessment proceedings. Evidence showed assessee's residential status as NRI on the date of notice issuance. Faceless Assessment Unit also acknowledged the case pertained to a non-resident individual, requiring assessment at the international charge. ITAT held ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer lacked jurisdiction when issuing the notice on 30.03.2022, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Additionally, the Assessing Officer erroneously treated the entire sale consideration as Long Term Capital Gain without considering the original cost and evidence provided by the assessee, resulting in a perverse order, which ITAT quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.