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 reassessment proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities were invalid as there was no new tangible material or information suggesting escapement of income. The reopening was based solely on the material already available on record, which amounts to a mere change of opinion, impermissible under law. The revenue authorities had already considered the allowability of deductions u/ss 54B and 54F during the original assessment proceedings. Reopening the assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not properly inquire or adopted a casual approach is not a valid reason to believe. The issuance of a notice u/s 148 must have a direct nexus with new information or tangible material that came to the knowledge of the authorities, which was lacking in this case. The court decided in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the revenue authorities were invalid as there was no new tangible material or information suggesting escapement of income. The reopening was based solely on the material already available on record, which amounts to a mere change of opinion, impermissible under law. The revenue authorities had already considered the allowability of deductions u/ss 54B and 54F during the original assessment proceedings. Reopening the assessment on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not properly inquire or adopted a casual approach is not a valid reason to believe. The issuance of a notice u/s 148 must have a direct nexus with new information or tangible material that came to the knowledge of the authorities, which was lacking in this case. The court decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.