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 Revisional Authority did not follow the proper procedure prescribed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act while invoking its revisionary powers. The key points are: The Revisional Authority did not make a specific finding that the benefit claimed by the assessee u/s 37 was wrongly allowed by the Assessing Officer. The order merely stated that it was unclear whether the benefit was allowed after proper inquiry. Section 263 mandates that the Revisional Authority examine the records, provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and make necessary inquiries before passing orders. The Revisional Authority did not arrive at a conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to claim the prior period expenses u/s 37. There was no satisfaction reached by the Revisional Authority that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests. The Revisional Authority cannot reopen an assessment in a casual or whimsical manner without satisfying the statutory requirements. The impugned order was issued in contravention of the requirements specified u/s 263, and the Court decided in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Revisional Authority did not follow the proper procedure prescribed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act while invoking its revisionary powers. The key points are: The Revisional Authority did not make a specific finding that the benefit claimed by the assessee u/s 37 was wrongly allowed by the Assessing Officer. The order merely stated that it was unclear whether the benefit was allowed after proper inquiry. Section 263 mandates that the Revisional Authority examine the records, provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and make necessary inquiries before passing orders. The Revisional Authority did not arrive at a conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to claim the prior period expenses u/s 37. There was no satisfaction reached by the Revisional Authority that the original assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interests. The Revisional Authority cannot reopen an assessment in a casual or whimsical manner without satisfying the statutory requirements. The impugned order was issued in contravention of the requirements specified u/s 263, and the Court decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.