Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 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 dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of assessment u/s 153C and notices issued u/s 153B of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the starting point of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153B is the date when the seized books of account, documents, or assets were handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person. The previous notices issued to the four transferor companies were void and irrelevant. The limitation period commenced from the date when the incriminating material was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, even if time was consumed in centralizing the material. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and notices issued by the Department.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the validity of assessment u/s 153C and notices issued u/s 153B of the Income Tax Act. The court held that the starting point of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153B is the date when the seized books of account, documents, or assets were handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person. The previous notices issued to the four transferor companies were void and irrelevant. The limitation period commenced from the date when the incriminating material was handed over to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, even if time was consumed in centralizing the material. The court found no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and notices issued by the Department.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
