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 ruled that AO cannot invoke Section 145(3) of IT Act without expressly identifying infirmities or discrepancies in assessee's books of accounts. The court held that AO's determination of 10% net profit rate was based on pure guesswork without proper material or evidence, making it impermissible under established legal principles. The court clarified that res judicata doctrine does not apply to income tax assessment proceedings, as each year's assessment is independent and final only for that specific year. Revenue authorities cannot make assessments through conjecture without reference to supporting evidence or material. The concurrent findings of CIT (Appeals) and ITAT interfering with AO's order were upheld as legally sound, with substantial question of law decided in favour of assessee against Revenue.
HC ruled that AO cannot invoke Section 145(3) of IT Act without expressly identifying infirmities or discrepancies in assessee's books of accounts. The court held that AO's determination of 10% net profit rate was based on pure guesswork without proper material or evidence, making it impermissible under established legal principles. The court clarified that res judicata doctrine does not apply to income tax assessment proceedings, as each year's assessment is independent and final only for that specific year. Revenue authorities cannot make assessments through conjecture without reference to supporting evidence or material. The concurrent findings of CIT (Appeals) and ITAT interfering with AO's order were upheld as legally sound, with substantial question of law decided in favour of assessee against Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.