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" ?
Validity of reopening an assessment and the legality of issuing a new Show Cause Notice u/s 148-A(b) after the conclusion of initial reassessment proceedings. The key points are: The respondents issued a Show Cause Notice u/s 148-A(b) on the premise that the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashish Agarwal requires all notices issued u/s 148 between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, to be treated as notices u/s 148-A(b). However, the assessment proceedings in this case were already concluded on March 30, 2022. Subsequently, reassessment action was re-initiated on the same set of reasons via a Show Cause Notice dated June 2, 2022, u/s 148-A(b), leading to an order u/s 148-A(d) and a notice u/s 148 dated July 19, 2022. The High Court held that there was no justification for the respondents to issue fresh notices seeking to reopen the proceedings that had been concluded prior to the Ashish Agarwal judgment. The judgment does not mandate the reopening of completed assessments. Consequently, the impugned action for reassessment could not be sustained.
Validity of reopening an assessment and the legality of issuing a new Show Cause Notice u/s 148-A(b) after the conclusion of initial reassessment proceedings. The key points are: The respondents issued a Show Cause Notice u/s 148-A(b) on the premise that the Supreme Court's judgment in Ashish Agarwal requires all notices issued u/s 148 between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, to be treated as notices u/s 148-A(b). However, the assessment proceedings in this case were already concluded on March 30, 2022. Subsequently, reassessment action was re-initiated on the same set of reasons via a Show Cause Notice dated June 2, 2022, u/s 148-A(b), leading to an order u/s 148-A(d) and a notice u/s 148 dated July 19, 2022. The High Court held that there was no justification for the respondents to issue fresh notices seeking to reopen the proceedings that had been concluded prior to the Ashish Agarwal judgment. The judgment does not mandate the reopening of completed assessments. Consequently, the impugned action for reassessment could not be sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
