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 case pertains to the validity of reopening an assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The crux lies in determining whether the reassessment proceedings can continue when the original reason for initiating them is no longer available. Relying on precedents from the Bombay and Madras High Courts, it was held that if the ground for reopening is no longer valid, the reassessment cannot proceed based on the original notice u/s 148, necessitating a fresh notice. In the present case, the assessment order revealed that no additions were made concerning the deletion of the immovable asset, which formed the basis for reopening. Consequently, since reassessment could not be sustained on this ground, the assessment order was set aside in favor of the assessee, without examining other contentions regarding the invalidity of the notice u/s 148.
The case pertains to the validity of reopening an assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. The crux lies in determining whether the reassessment proceedings can continue when the original reason for initiating them is no longer available. Relying on precedents from the Bombay and Madras High Courts, it was held that if the ground for reopening is no longer valid, the reassessment cannot proceed based on the original notice u/s 148, necessitating a fresh notice. In the present case, the assessment order revealed that no additions were made concerning the deletion of the immovable asset, which formed the basis for reopening. Consequently, since reassessment could not be sustained on this ground, the assessment order was set aside in favor of the assessee, without examining other contentions regarding the invalidity of the notice u/s 148.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.