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 reassessment notice dated 30.07.2022 for AY 2013-14 as time-barred under s.149(1) of IT Act. Court held that 29-day extension under TOLA required completion of both s.148A(d) order and s.148 notice by 12.07.2022. Despite procedural timeline of one month under s.148A(d), AO was bound by overarching limitation period. Court applied SC decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal to calculate available time, excluding periods between 01.06.2021-04.05.2022 and 04.05.2022-30.05.2022. Since notice was issued on 30.07.2022, beyond calculated deadline, proceedings were invalid. HC rejected Revenue's argument that s.148A(d) timeline operated independently of s.149 limitation.
HC quashed reassessment notice dated 30.07.2022 for AY 2013-14 as time-barred under s.149(1) of IT Act. Court held that 29-day extension under TOLA required completion of both s.148A(d) order and s.148 notice by 12.07.2022. Despite procedural timeline of one month under s.148A(d), AO was bound by overarching limitation period. Court applied SC decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal to calculate available time, excluding periods between 01.06.2021-04.05.2022 and 04.05.2022-30.05.2022. Since notice was issued on 30.07.2022, beyond calculated deadline, proceedings were invalid. HC rejected Revenue's argument that s.148A(d) timeline operated independently of s.149 limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.