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" ?
The HC upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid. Although Explanation 1 to Section 147 states that mere production of evidence before the AO does not constitute disclosure under the first proviso, the disputed amounts (Rs. 594.33 lakhs and 438.96 lakhs) had been available and reviewed by the AO during the original assessment under Section 143(1). Therefore, invoking Section 148 for reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 lacked jurisdiction. The Court noted that while the assessee should have properly written off non-performing assets under Section 36(1)(vii), the substantial questions of law were resolved in the assessee's favor.
The HC upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid. Although Explanation 1 to Section 147 states that mere production of evidence before the AO does not constitute disclosure under the first proviso, the disputed amounts (Rs. 594.33 lakhs and 438.96 lakhs) had been available and reviewed by the AO during the original assessment under Section 143(1). Therefore, invoking Section 148 for reassessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 lacked jurisdiction. The Court noted that while the assessee should have properly written off non-performing assets under Section 36(1)(vii), the substantial questions of law were resolved in the assessee's favor.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.