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 quashed notice for reopening assessment under s.147 due to AO's failure to specify which material facts were not fully disclosed by petitioner. Court emphasized that reasons for reopening must establish clear link between grounds and evidence, which cannot be supplemented later through affidavits or oral submissions. Since reopening was attempted beyond four-year limitation period, AO needed to demonstrate petitioner's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly. Following precedent, Court held that reopening restrictions must be evaluated solely based on recorded reasons, without subsequent additions or modifications. Notice invalidated as AO failed to meet statutory requirements for assessment reopening beyond limitation period.
HC quashed notice for reopening assessment under s.147 due to AO's failure to specify which material facts were not fully disclosed by petitioner. Court emphasized that reasons for reopening must establish clear link between grounds and evidence, which cannot be supplemented later through affidavits or oral submissions. Since reopening was attempted beyond four-year limitation period, AO needed to demonstrate petitioner's failure to disclose material facts fully and truly. Following precedent, Court held that reopening restrictions must be evaluated solely based on recorded reasons, without subsequent additions or modifications. Notice invalidated as AO failed to meet statutory requirements for assessment reopening beyond limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.