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 reassessment notice issued by the AO was invalid. The notice was beyond the prescribed limitation period and constituted an impermissible review of a concluded assessment. The AO's attempt to reopen the assessment based on audit observations did not meet the legal threshold for "escaped assessment" under Section 147 and Section 148A. The court found no additional material suggesting income escaped assessment, and the notice was effectively an attempt to change the original assessment order. The reassessment proceedings were consequently quashed, with the limitation period being a critical factor in the court's determination.
HC held that the reassessment notice issued by the AO was invalid. The notice was beyond the prescribed limitation period and constituted an impermissible review of a concluded assessment. The AO's attempt to reopen the assessment based on audit observations did not meet the legal threshold for "escaped assessment" under Section 147 and Section 148A. The court found no additional material suggesting income escaped assessment, and the notice was effectively an attempt to change the original assessment order. The reassessment proceedings were consequently quashed, with the limitation period being a critical factor in the court's determination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.