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" ?
Reassessment action initiated based on Section 148 notice and subsequent Section 148A(b) notice violated the First Proviso to Section 149(1) and was barred by the limitation period. The reassessment action commenced post April 1, 2021, was subject to the amended provisions. The Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal held that notices issued under unamended provisions should be treated as notices u/s 148A(b), subject to compliance with procedural requirements and defenses available under amended provisions, including Section 149. However, the terminal date of March 31, 2022, for commencing reassessment had passed when the Section 148A(b) notice was issued on May 27, 2022, contravening the First Proviso to Section 149(1). Ashish Agarwal cannot be construed as depriving the assessee of objections based on Section 149(1) or reinventing proceedings unchallenged earlier. The May 27, 2022 notice cannot be viewed as a continuation or substitution of the original Section 148 notice, as no legal challenge was instituted against the original notice, and no court order interdicted the reassessment action. The assessing officer failed to take corrective action despite being apprised of the amended procedure. Consequently, the impugned notice u/s.
Reassessment action initiated based on Section 148 notice and subsequent Section 148A(b) notice violated the First Proviso to Section 149(1) and was barred by the limitation period. The reassessment action commenced post April 1, 2021, was subject to the amended provisions. The Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal held that notices issued under unamended provisions should be treated as notices u/s 148A(b), subject to compliance with procedural requirements and defenses available under amended provisions, including Section 149. However, the terminal date of March 31, 2022, for commencing reassessment had passed when the Section 148A(b) notice was issued on May 27, 2022, contravening the First Proviso to Section 149(1). Ashish Agarwal cannot be construed as depriving the assessee of objections based on Section 149(1) or reinventing proceedings unchallenged earlier. The May 27, 2022 notice cannot be viewed as a continuation or substitution of the original Section 148 notice, as no legal challenge was instituted against the original notice, and no court order interdicted the reassessment action. The assessing officer failed to take corrective action despite being apprised of the amended procedure. Consequently, the impugned notice u/s.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.