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 was not permitted to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, as it would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A, which mandates a faceless assessment regime. Relying on the recent decisions in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hexaware Technology Ltd., the Court ruled that the Revenue had not complied with the Scheme notified by the Central Government pursuant to Section 151A(2) of the Act. Consequently, the manner in which the reassessment proceedings were initiated was vitiated. The sanction granted by the authority was rendered invalid since it was not issued by the authorities specified in Section 151(ii) for reassessment proceedings. The Court decided in favor of the assessee, holding that the proceedings initiated u/s 148 would not be sustainable in light of the Hexaware judgment.
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was not permitted to issue a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, as it would amount to a breach of the provisions of Section 151A, which mandates a faceless assessment regime. Relying on the recent decisions in Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Hexaware Technology Ltd., the Court ruled that the Revenue had not complied with the Scheme notified by the Central Government pursuant to Section 151A(2) of the Act. Consequently, the manner in which the reassessment proceedings were initiated was vitiated. The sanction granted by the authority was rendered invalid since it was not issued by the authorities specified in Section 151(ii) for reassessment proceedings. The Court decided in favor of the assessee, holding that the proceedings initiated u/s 148 would not be sustainable in light of the Hexaware judgment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.