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 and set aside an order passed under s.264 of the Income Tax Act, remanding the matter for fresh determination. The Court held that notice under s.148 was never served upon the petitioner's late husband, preventing the Assessing Officer from validly assuming jurisdiction. The Court found that the Commissioner had incorrectly limited the scope of revisional powers under s.264 to mere correction of mistakes in the assessment order. The HC clarified that s.264 confers wide powers on the Commissioner to consider the entire assessment proceedings, conduct inquiries, and pass appropriate non-prejudicial orders. The Commissioner's truncated interpretation of s.264 was deemed contrary to the statutory provision itself.
The HC quashed and set aside an order passed under s.264 of the Income Tax Act, remanding the matter for fresh determination. The Court held that notice under s.148 was never served upon the petitioner's late husband, preventing the Assessing Officer from validly assuming jurisdiction. The Court found that the Commissioner had incorrectly limited the scope of revisional powers under s.264 to mere correction of mistakes in the assessment order. The HC clarified that s.264 confers wide powers on the Commissioner to consider the entire assessment proceedings, conduct inquiries, and pass appropriate non-prejudicial orders. The Commissioner's truncated interpretation of s.264 was deemed contrary to the statutory provision itself.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
