Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The ITAT set aside the assessment order under section 147, holding that the AO failed to comply with mandatory conditions under sections 147-151A. Regarding infrastructure fund additions, the Tribunal noted the AO issued a cryptic, non-speaking order without explaining the legal basis for additions. The assessment contained patent calculation errors, with incorrect column totals and misidentified infrastructure fund components. Following precedent from the assessee's own cases for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal determined that even if accretions to the infrastructure fund were taxable income, they would remain exempt under section 11. The assessment was vitiated by computational errors and lack of proper reasoning. Appeal allowed.
The ITAT set aside the assessment order under section 147, holding that the AO failed to comply with mandatory conditions under sections 147-151A. Regarding infrastructure fund additions, the Tribunal noted the AO issued a cryptic, non-speaking order without explaining the legal basis for additions. The assessment contained patent calculation errors, with incorrect column totals and misidentified infrastructure fund components. Following precedent from the assessee's own cases for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, the Tribunal determined that even if accretions to the infrastructure fund were taxable income, they would remain exempt under section 11. The assessment was vitiated by computational errors and lack of proper reasoning. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.