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 held that the jurisdictional facts necessary to invoke Section 147 for reassessment were absent. The reassessment was initiated after the four-year period, but there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts during the original assessment. The facts relied upon for reassessment were fully disclosed during the scrutiny proceedings in the original assessment. The Revenue is seeking to express a different opinion based on the same disclosed facts, which is impermissible. The sanction mechanism u/s 151 for reassessment was rendered arbitrary due to non-application of mind and mechanical approval without considering the ingredients of Section 147. The court emphasized the imperative requirement of compliance with Sections 147 and 148 and decided in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the jurisdictional facts necessary to invoke Section 147 for reassessment were absent. The reassessment was initiated after the four-year period, but there was no failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts during the original assessment. The facts relied upon for reassessment were fully disclosed during the scrutiny proceedings in the original assessment. The Revenue is seeking to express a different opinion based on the same disclosed facts, which is impermissible. The sanction mechanism u/s 151 for reassessment was rendered arbitrary due to non-application of mind and mechanical approval without considering the ingredients of Section 147. The court emphasized the imperative requirement of compliance with Sections 147 and 148 and decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.