Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that when the valuation officer fails to submit the valuation report within a reasonable time, the assessing officer cannot extend the limitation period indefinitely for completing the assessment solely due to the absence of the valuation report. The revenue's interest cannot override considerations of probity and fairness in tax governance. If the assessing officer is allowed to modify the order after receiving the valuation report beyond the limitation period, it would reward the revenue with an enhanced limitation period and embolden unscrupulous tax officials to mistreat the assessee. Consequently, the ITAT deleted the addition made by the assessing officer, who had computed the capital gains by taking the value determined by the stamp authorities as the sale consideration instead of the value declared by the assessee. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that when the valuation officer fails to submit the valuation report within a reasonable time, the assessing officer cannot extend the limitation period indefinitely for completing the assessment solely due to the absence of the valuation report. The revenue's interest cannot override considerations of probity and fairness in tax governance. If the assessing officer is allowed to modify the order after receiving the valuation report beyond the limitation period, it would reward the revenue with an enhanced limitation period and embolden unscrupulous tax officials to mistreat the assessee. Consequently, the ITAT deleted the addition made by the assessing officer, who had computed the capital gains by taking the value determined by the stamp authorities as the sale consideration instead of the value declared by the assessee. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.