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" ?
ITAT quashed assessment orders under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 due to jurisdictional defects in notice issuance. The AO issued multiple notices under Section 10(1) for AY 2018-19, but per Section 72(c)'s deeming provisions, undisclosed foreign assets are deemed acquired in the year of notice issuance. Since notices were issued in 2018, assessments should have been for AY 2019-20, not AY 2018-19. The Tribunal held that without proper jurisdiction through valid notice, the AO couldn't pass assessment orders. The protective assessments of 50% amounts were invalidated due to this fundamental jurisdictional error.
ITAT quashed assessment orders under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 due to jurisdictional defects in notice issuance. The AO issued multiple notices under Section 10(1) for AY 2018-19, but per Section 72(c)'s deeming provisions, undisclosed foreign assets are deemed acquired in the year of notice issuance. Since notices were issued in 2018, assessments should have been for AY 2019-20, not AY 2018-19. The Tribunal held that without proper jurisdiction through valid notice, the AO couldn't pass assessment orders. The protective assessments of 50% amounts were invalidated due to this fundamental jurisdictional error.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.