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 (JAO) has valid jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 for reopening of assessment, even in cases of search and seizure u/s 132. The faceless assessment scheme u/s 151A mandates recording satisfaction by the JAO before issuing such notice, but does not preclude the JAO from issuing the notice directly. The Court observed that the scheme aims to eliminate interface between tax authorities and assessees to the extent technologically feasible. The petitioner's challenge to the notice on grounds of lack of jurisdiction was rejected. The Court noted that satisfaction notes were provided, and subsequent proceedings like notice u/s 142(1) were issued by the Verification Unit of the Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioners were advised to pursue remedies before the competent authority and seek virtual hearings if required, ensuring strict compliance with the law.
The High Court held that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) has valid jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 148 for reopening of assessment, even in cases of search and seizure u/s 132. The faceless assessment scheme u/s 151A mandates recording satisfaction by the JAO before issuing such notice, but does not preclude the JAO from issuing the notice directly. The Court observed that the scheme aims to eliminate interface between tax authorities and assessees to the extent technologically feasible. The petitioner's challenge to the notice on grounds of lack of jurisdiction was rejected. The Court noted that satisfaction notes were provided, and subsequent proceedings like notice u/s 142(1) were issued by the Verification Unit of the Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioners were advised to pursue remedies before the competent authority and seek virtual hearings if required, ensuring strict compliance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.