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 ITAT held that the assessment order under section 143(3) was invalid due to jurisdictional defects. The initial notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur, while the subsequent notice under section 142(1) and final assessment were made by ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur without any transfer order under section 127 from the Pr. CIT. The Tribunal emphasized that notice, derived from Latin "notitia," requires proper time, place, nature of hearing, legal authority, and specific charges. Since the assessment proceedings suffered from lack of jurisdiction with no valid transfer order and improper notice issuance, the entire proceedings were declared non-est in law. The assessee's appeal was allowed and the assessment order quashed.
The ITAT held that the assessment order under section 143(3) was invalid due to jurisdictional defects. The initial notice under section 143(2) was issued by ITO, Ward-4(5), Raipur, while the subsequent notice under section 142(1) and final assessment were made by ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur without any transfer order under section 127 from the Pr. CIT. The Tribunal emphasized that notice, derived from Latin "notitia," requires proper time, place, nature of hearing, legal authority, and specific charges. Since the assessment proceedings suffered from lack of jurisdiction with no valid transfer order and improper notice issuance, the entire proceedings were declared non-est in law. The assessee's appeal was allowed and the assessment order quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.