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 assessment officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, citing Section 147(b) as the basis for approval, which is a non-existent provision. The sanctioning authority granted approval without considering this vital aspect, indicating a lack of independent application of mind and inquiry into the matter. The approval was granted mechanically and perfunctorily, without providing minimal reasons for satisfaction. The transaction in question involved parties other than the assessee. The reasons recorded for exercising jurisdiction u/s 147 were plagued with critical defects, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid u/s 292B of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were held to be bad in law, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The assessment officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, citing Section 147(b) as the basis for approval, which is a non-existent provision. The sanctioning authority granted approval without considering this vital aspect, indicating a lack of independent application of mind and inquiry into the matter. The approval was granted mechanically and perfunctorily, without providing minimal reasons for satisfaction. The transaction in question involved parties other than the assessee. The reasons recorded for exercising jurisdiction u/s 147 were plagued with critical defects, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid u/s 292B of the Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were held to be bad in law, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.