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 quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against a dissolved partnership firm. The Assessing Officer had erroneously issued notice under s.148A(b) and passed order under s.148A(d) in the name of the partnership firm that had been dissolved effective April 1, 2017. The Court held that such proceedings were untenable, particularly since the petitioner had provided all relevant information including the dissolution deed in response to the show cause notice. Following the precedent established in Maruti Suzuki Limited, the Court determined that reassessment notices issued in the name of a non-existent entity cannot be sustained, and accordingly set aside the impugned notice and order.
The HC quashed reassessment proceedings initiated against a dissolved partnership firm. The Assessing Officer had erroneously issued notice under s.148A(b) and passed order under s.148A(d) in the name of the partnership firm that had been dissolved effective April 1, 2017. The Court held that such proceedings were untenable, particularly since the petitioner had provided all relevant information including the dissolution deed in response to the show cause notice. Following the precedent established in Maruti Suzuki Limited, the Court determined that reassessment notices issued in the name of a non-existent entity cannot be sustained, and accordingly set aside the impugned notice and order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
