Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity of adjustments made in an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, where there was a mismatch between the income tax return and the tax audit report filed by the assessee. The key issue was whether the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) could make adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) while processing the return without complying with the first proviso, which requires prior intimation to the assessee. The Tribunal held that any proposed adjustment necessitates prior intimation to the assessee, either in writing or electronically, as per the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a). The CPC failed to issue such prior intimation before making the adjustment. Consequently, the impugned intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) was not in compliance with the provisos and was deemed invalid under the Act. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Validity of adjustments made in an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, where there was a mismatch between the income tax return and the tax audit report filed by the assessee. The key issue was whether the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) could make adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) while processing the return without complying with the first proviso, which requires prior intimation to the assessee. The Tribunal held that any proposed adjustment necessitates prior intimation to the assessee, either in writing or electronically, as per the first proviso to Section 143(1)(a). The CPC failed to issue such prior intimation before making the adjustment. Consequently, the impugned intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) was not in compliance with the provisos and was deemed invalid under the Act. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
