Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appeal filed by the assessee company was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds that the Form 36 (memo of appeal) was not duly verified as per Rule 47(1) read with Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The rules mandate that Form 36 must be verified by the person authorized to verify the return of income u/s 140 of the Income Tax Act, which in case of a company is the Managing Director or any Director. However, in this case, Form 36 was verified by the Authorized Representative (Chartered Accountant) of the assessee company instead of the Managing Director or a Director. Consequently, the appeal was held to be invalid and dismissed in limine. The Tribunal also noted issues with the ex-parte assessment order passed without proper service of notice to the assessee and in the name of a different entity, as well as the addition of bogus accommodation entries.
The appeal filed by the assessee company was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds that the Form 36 (memo of appeal) was not duly verified as per Rule 47(1) read with Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The rules mandate that Form 36 must be verified by the person authorized to verify the return of income u/s 140 of the Income Tax Act, which in case of a company is the Managing Director or any Director. However, in this case, Form 36 was verified by the Authorized Representative (Chartered Accountant) of the assessee company instead of the Managing Director or a Director. Consequently, the appeal was held to be invalid and dismissed in limine. The Tribunal also noted issues with the ex-parte assessment order passed without proper service of notice to the assessee and in the name of a different entity, as well as the addition of bogus accommodation entries.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
