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 Assessing Officer (AO) could not reopen the assessment merely based on a belief that the average gross profit in the assessee's business line should be around 0.5% of the turnover. The court ruled that before concluding the original assessment, the AO should have sought an explanation from the assessee regarding the low net profit declared. Reopening the assessment on this ground amounted to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. The court also observed that the AO could have requested the KYC documents if there were doubts about the cash deposits, instead of treating it as a ground for reopening. The court emphasized that reopening must be based on fresh facts or information exposing the untruthfulness of previously disclosed facts, not merely a different inference from the same facts. The court allowed the assessee's petition, concluding that the reopening would amount to an impermissible review.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) could not reopen the assessment merely based on a belief that the average gross profit in the assessee's business line should be around 0.5% of the turnover. The court ruled that before concluding the original assessment, the AO should have sought an explanation from the assessee regarding the low net profit declared. Reopening the assessment on this ground amounted to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible. The court also observed that the AO could have requested the KYC documents if there were doubts about the cash deposits, instead of treating it as a ground for reopening. The court emphasized that reopening must be based on fresh facts or information exposing the untruthfulness of previously disclosed facts, not merely a different inference from the same facts. The court allowed the assessee's petition, concluding that the reopening would amount to an impermissible review.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.