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 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment and addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of the assessee was unjustified and unsustainable. The assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital through legal evidence. The Tribunal applied the law laid down in the case of M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The regular assessment was framed u/s 143(3), and during the assessment process, the share capital contribution was examined and accepted. No new tangible material had emerged subsequent to the order passed u/s 143(3). The reasons recorded for reopening merely indicated information received regarding a statement given by an individual during a search conducted at his premises, which was not specific to the assessee's transaction. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 for reassessment was held to be not in accordance with the law, and the reassessment framed was canceled.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment and addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act in the case of the assessee was unjustified and unsustainable. The assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital through legal evidence. The Tribunal applied the law laid down in the case of M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The regular assessment was framed u/s 143(3), and during the assessment process, the share capital contribution was examined and accepted. No new tangible material had emerged subsequent to the order passed u/s 143(3). The reasons recorded for reopening merely indicated information received regarding a statement given by an individual during a search conducted at his premises, which was not specific to the assessee's transaction. Consequently, the notice issued u/s 148 for reassessment was held to be not in accordance with the law, and the reassessment framed was canceled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.