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 assessee was allowed deduction u/s 54/54F without proper examination of relevant details and materials. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed the assessment u/s 143(3) after considering the details of assets sold and cost of acquisition, allowing the deduction u/s 54F. The assessee furnished investment details and bills/vouchers in response to the notice u/s 142(1). The AO/NFAC, after examining the relevant details, concluded on the allowability of deduction u/s 54F. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) noted that the assessee furnished investment details of a huge amount, out of which deduction was claimed without specifying the expenses against which Section 54F deduction was claimed. However, it cannot be said that there was no enquiry or inadequate enquiry regarding the Section 54F exemption. The notice u/s 263 issued by the PCIT was vague and aimed at making deeper enquiry and re-considering the evidence already on record, claiming fresh facts emerged subsequent to the assessment order, which was factually incorrect and untenable. The conditions enabling the PCIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 were not satisfied. The PCIT's discretionary power u/s 263 cannot be assumed arbitrarily, and something should be brought on record to show the error and prejudice to revenue caused by.
The assessee was allowed deduction u/s 54/54F without proper examination of relevant details and materials. The Assessing Officer (AO) framed the assessment u/s 143(3) after considering the details of assets sold and cost of acquisition, allowing the deduction u/s 54F. The assessee furnished investment details and bills/vouchers in response to the notice u/s 142(1). The AO/NFAC, after examining the relevant details, concluded on the allowability of deduction u/s 54F. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) noted that the assessee furnished investment details of a huge amount, out of which deduction was claimed without specifying the expenses against which Section 54F deduction was claimed. However, it cannot be said that there was no enquiry or inadequate enquiry regarding the Section 54F exemption. The notice u/s 263 issued by the PCIT was vague and aimed at making deeper enquiry and re-considering the evidence already on record, claiming fresh facts emerged subsequent to the assessment order, which was factually incorrect and untenable. The conditions enabling the PCIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 were not satisfied. The PCIT's discretionary power u/s 263 cannot be assumed arbitrarily, and something should be brought on record to show the error and prejudice to revenue caused by.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.