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" ?
ITAT invalidated reassessment proceedings due to procedural irregularities in sanctioning authority under section 151. The tribunal found that the approval for reopening assessment beyond three years was not granted by the competent authority as prescribed under the new regime. The assessment order under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B was struck down due to lack of valid jurisdictional sanction. The tribunal determined that the revenue's reliance on previous judgments was misplaced, and the assessment order was consequently quashed, rendering the entire reassessment process invalid. The decision was rendered in favor of the assessee, effectively nullifying the tax department's attempt to reopen and reassess the tax liability.
ITAT invalidated reassessment proceedings due to procedural irregularities in sanctioning authority under section 151. The tribunal found that the approval for reopening assessment beyond three years was not granted by the competent authority as prescribed under the new regime. The assessment order under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B was struck down due to lack of valid jurisdictional sanction. The tribunal determined that the revenue's reliance on previous judgments was misplaced, and the assessment order was consequently quashed, rendering the entire reassessment process invalid. The decision was rendered in favor of the assessee, effectively nullifying the tax department's attempt to reopen and reassess the tax liability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.