Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Transfer Pricing Officer's order was held invalid as it was issued beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) of the Act read with Section 153. The ITAT ruled that the limitation period prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) is mandatory, and the TPO has no authority to breach this statutory provision by passing an order after the expiry of the prescribed time, which is 60 days prior to the due date for completion of assessment u/s 153. The word 'may' used in Section 92CA(3A) should be construed as 'shall' to prevent the TPO from allowing more time to pass the transfer pricing order, thereby violating the time limit for completion of assessment by the Assessing Officer u/s 153 read with Section 92CA(3). Consequently, the Assessing Officer was not available with the extended period of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153(4). The case was decided in favor of the assessee.
The Transfer Pricing Officer's order was held invalid as it was issued beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) of the Act read with Section 153. The ITAT ruled that the limitation period prescribed u/s 92CA(3A) is mandatory, and the TPO has no authority to breach this statutory provision by passing an order after the expiry of the prescribed time, which is 60 days prior to the due date for completion of assessment u/s 153. The word 'may' used in Section 92CA(3A) should be construed as 'shall' to prevent the TPO from allowing more time to pass the transfer pricing order, thereby violating the time limit for completion of assessment by the Assessing Officer u/s 153 read with Section 92CA(3). Consequently, the Assessing Officer was not available with the extended period of limitation for passing the assessment order u/s 153(4). The case was decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
