Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment order. Despite the alleged violation of statutory procedure u/s 144B, the Tribunal found that the assessment proceedings were not time-barred. The Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) directions u/s 144C(5) were initially not visible to the Assessing Officer due to a software issue. However, the Revenue proved that the DRP order was received by the National Faceless Assessment Centre on 06.04.2022 and uploaded on 18.04.2022, after which the Assessing Officer received it. The final assessment order passed on 30.05.2022 was within the time limit prescribed u/s 144C(13) from the date of receipt of the DRP order. Relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation of "receipt" in CIT vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed, the Tribunal held the assessment order legally valid and decided against the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment order. Despite the alleged violation of statutory procedure u/s 144B, the Tribunal found that the assessment proceedings were not time-barred. The Dispute Resolution Panel's (DRP) directions u/s 144C(5) were initially not visible to the Assessing Officer due to a software issue. However, the Revenue proved that the DRP order was received by the National Faceless Assessment Centre on 06.04.2022 and uploaded on 18.04.2022, after which the Assessing Officer received it. The final assessment order passed on 30.05.2022 was within the time limit prescribed u/s 144C(13) from the date of receipt of the DRP order. Relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation of "receipt" in CIT vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed, the Tribunal held the assessment order legally valid and decided against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
