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 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is not permitted to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, as it would violate the provisions of Section 151A, which mandates faceless assessment. The Court relied on recent decisions in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hexaware Technology Ltd., where it was established that the faceless assessment regime u/s 151A excludes the JAO's jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148. The Court clarified that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuing notices u/s 148 or passing assessment/reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction is assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, it is to the exclusion of the other. Accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to chaos and render the faceless proceedings redundant. The Court held that when an authority acts contrary to law, the act is required to be quashed as invalid, and the assessee need not establish prejudice, as the unlawful act itself causes prejudice. All assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law, and when the Income Tax Authority proposes action without following due process, it results in prejudice to the assessee. The Court decided in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is not permitted to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, as it would violate the provisions of Section 151A, which mandates faceless assessment. The Court relied on recent decisions in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hexaware Technology Ltd., where it was established that the faceless assessment regime u/s 151A excludes the JAO's jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148. The Court clarified that there is no concurrent jurisdiction between the JAO and the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) for issuing notices u/s 148 or passing assessment/reassessment orders. When specific jurisdiction is assigned to either the JAO or the FAO under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, it is to the exclusion of the other. Accepting the Revenue's argument would lead to chaos and render the faceless proceedings redundant. The Court held that when an authority acts contrary to law, the act is required to be quashed as invalid, and the assessee need not establish prejudice, as the unlawful act itself causes prejudice. All assessees are entitled to be assessed as per law, and when the Income Tax Authority proposes action without following due process, it results in prejudice to the assessee. The Court decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.