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 held that reassessment notice u/s 147/148 was invalid due to lack of jurisdictional requirements. The AO failed to establish income escapement, as all primary facts were previously available during original assessment u/s 153A. The tribunal found no deliberate non-disclosure by the assessee, determining the reopening was merely a change of opinion. The notice was time-barred and issued beyond four years without substantive evidence of material fact concealment. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings as procedurally unsustainable and without legal foundation.
ITAT held that reassessment notice u/s 147/148 was invalid due to lack of jurisdictional requirements. The AO failed to establish income escapement, as all primary facts were previously available during original assessment u/s 153A. The tribunal found no deliberate non-disclosure by the assessee, determining the reopening was merely a change of opinion. The notice was time-barred and issued beyond four years without substantive evidence of material fact concealment. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings as procedurally unsustainable and without legal foundation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.