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" ?
HC held that notices under s.148 issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer remain valid despite faceless assessment requirements, as traditional and faceless mechanisms are meant to work complementarily. The Court rejected challenges to AO's jurisdiction, clarifying that distribution of functions between jurisdictional AO and National Faceless Assessment Centre is concurrent. However, approvals granted by Joint Commissioner post April 1, 2021, were deemed invalid. AOs were directed to evaluate individual show cause notices considering precedents from T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, and Naveen Kumar Gupta cases regarding sanction under s.151 and reassessment procedures. Assessment of limitation periods must follow Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram judgments. AOs must issue reasoned orders determining validity of reassessment notices, with petitioners retaining right to challenge adverse decisions.
HC held that notices under s.148 issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer remain valid despite faceless assessment requirements, as traditional and faceless mechanisms are meant to work complementarily. The Court rejected challenges to AO's jurisdiction, clarifying that distribution of functions between jurisdictional AO and National Faceless Assessment Centre is concurrent. However, approvals granted by Joint Commissioner post April 1, 2021, were deemed invalid. AOs were directed to evaluate individual show cause notices considering precedents from T.K.S. Builders, Abhinav Jindal, and Naveen Kumar Gupta cases regarding sanction under s.151 and reassessment procedures. Assessment of limitation periods must follow Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram judgments. AOs must issue reasoned orders determining validity of reassessment notices, with petitioners retaining right to challenge adverse decisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.