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" ?
HC held that the Assessing Officer could not reopen the assessment merely on a change of opinion. The court found that the petitioner had already disclosed all relevant facts during the original assessment, including TDS details and deductions under section 80IC. The reopening of assessment was deemed improper as it did not reveal any new information constituting income escapement. The court emphasized that reassessment is not equivalent to reviewing the original assessment order. The procedural provisions and amendments to sections 147 and 148 did not alter the fundamental principle against reopening assessments based solely on a different interpretation of existing information. Judgment was decided in favor of the assessee.
HC held that the Assessing Officer could not reopen the assessment merely on a change of opinion. The court found that the petitioner had already disclosed all relevant facts during the original assessment, including TDS details and deductions under section 80IC. The reopening of assessment was deemed improper as it did not reveal any new information constituting income escapement. The court emphasized that reassessment is not equivalent to reviewing the original assessment order. The procedural provisions and amendments to sections 147 and 148 did not alter the fundamental principle against reopening assessments based solely on a different interpretation of existing information. Judgment was decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.