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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The ITAT examined whether the PCIT could invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 when the AO had already raised specific queries, received detailed responses, and passed an order under Section 143(3). The tribunal held that where the AO conducted an inquiry and considered the assessee's submissions, it does not constitute a case of lack of inquiry but potentially an inadequate inquiry. Consequently, the PCIT cannot set aside the original assessment order. The tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and allowed the assessee's grounds, emphasizing that procedural scrutiny does not automatically justify revisional jurisdiction when substantive examination has occurred.
The ITAT examined whether the PCIT could invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 when the AO had already raised specific queries, received detailed responses, and passed an order under Section 143(3). The tribunal held that where the AO conducted an inquiry and considered the assessee's submissions, it does not constitute a case of lack of inquiry but potentially an inadequate inquiry. Consequently, the PCIT cannot set aside the original assessment order. The tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and allowed the assessee's grounds, emphasizing that procedural scrutiny does not automatically justify revisional jurisdiction when substantive examination has occurred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.