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 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) lacked jurisdiction to pass an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act in this case. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not raise any queries regarding the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) claim without declaring corresponding interest income during the assessment proceedings, nor did the assessee provide justification for the same. The PCIT sought to make an addition u/s 68 on a transaction that was not part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Court observed that the PCIT's powers u/s 263 are in the nature of review and can be exercised only if the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. Since the AO accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the share purchase transaction and the borrowed funds, the AO could not make additions on other grounds in the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the non-addition of income commensurate to TDS or failure to make further inquiries did not confer jurisdiction on the PCIT to pass an order u/s 263. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) lacked jurisdiction to pass an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act in this case. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not raise any queries regarding the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) claim without declaring corresponding interest income during the assessment proceedings, nor did the assessee provide justification for the same. The PCIT sought to make an addition u/s 68 on a transaction that was not part of the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The Court observed that the PCIT's powers u/s 263 are in the nature of review and can be exercised only if the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. Since the AO accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the share purchase transaction and the borrowed funds, the AO could not make additions on other grounds in the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the non-addition of income commensurate to TDS or failure to make further inquiries did not confer jurisdiction on the PCIT to pass an order u/s 263. The decision was in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.