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 u/s 143(1) was invalid as the procedure laid down u/s 144B was not followed. The case was selected for regular assessment, but the assessee was not given an opportunity before making the addition. The revenue argued that the intimation order does not merge with the regular assessment when the Assessing Officer taxes the taxable income based on the intimation order u/s 143(1). However, it is well-settled law that an assessee cannot be taxed on an amount not legally imposable. The intimation u/s 143(1) was passed after selecting the case for regular assessment without giving the assessee an opportunity. The regular assessment u/s 143(3) was also passed within three months of the intimation order u/s 143(1). As per the Second Proviso to Section 143(1), no intimation can be sent after the expiry of the prescribed time limit. The assessee could have filed a rectification application u/s 154, which should have been disposed of within six months. However, the regular assessment was passed before that. The addition was proposed based on an apparent mistake, which the authorities failed to appreciate. The assessee did not claim the contingent liability in the profit and loss account, and the mistake was made by the tax auditor. The assessee cannot be penalized for the tax auditor's mistake. To achieve speedy justice, the Assessing.
The assessment u/s 143(1) was invalid as the procedure laid down u/s 144B was not followed. The case was selected for regular assessment, but the assessee was not given an opportunity before making the addition. The revenue argued that the intimation order does not merge with the regular assessment when the Assessing Officer taxes the taxable income based on the intimation order u/s 143(1). However, it is well-settled law that an assessee cannot be taxed on an amount not legally imposable. The intimation u/s 143(1) was passed after selecting the case for regular assessment without giving the assessee an opportunity. The regular assessment u/s 143(3) was also passed within three months of the intimation order u/s 143(1). As per the Second Proviso to Section 143(1), no intimation can be sent after the expiry of the prescribed time limit. The assessee could have filed a rectification application u/s 154, which should have been disposed of within six months. However, the regular assessment was passed before that. The addition was proposed based on an apparent mistake, which the authorities failed to appreciate. The assessee did not claim the contingent liability in the profit and loss account, and the mistake was made by the tax auditor. The assessee cannot be penalized for the tax auditor's mistake. To achieve speedy justice, the Assessing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.