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" ?
ITAT quashed assessment order regarding additions under section 56(1)(vii) amounting to Rs. 139.67 crores made on basis of third-party documents found during search operations. Tribunal held that search material lacked evidentiary value without independent corroboration, following Supreme Court precedent in Common Cause case. Additional CIT's jurisdiction was challenged due to absence of valid order under section 120(4)(b). Tribunal ruled assessment order void ab-initio, citing TATA Communications Ltd case where similar jurisdictional defect invalidated proceedings. Key factors included lack of corroborative evidence linking documents to assessee, denied allegations regarding pen drive discovery, and failure to allow cross-examination of evidence. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee.
ITAT quashed assessment order regarding additions under section 56(1)(vii) amounting to Rs. 139.67 crores made on basis of third-party documents found during search operations. Tribunal held that search material lacked evidentiary value without independent corroboration, following Supreme Court precedent in Common Cause case. Additional CIT's jurisdiction was challenged due to absence of valid order under section 120(4)(b). Tribunal ruled assessment order void ab-initio, citing TATA Communications Ltd case where similar jurisdictional defect invalidated proceedings. Key factors included lack of corroborative evidence linking documents to assessee, denied allegations regarding pen drive discovery, and failure to allow cross-examination of evidence. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.