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" ?
The HC invalidated the assessment framed under section 143(3) due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement under section 143(2)(ii), as the notice was not served within twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. The court relied on established Supreme Court precedent affirming the necessity of timely issuance of the notice. The respondent's objection to the framing of a substantial question of law at the hearing was dismissed, with the HC affirming its authority to frame such questions under section 260-A(4). Consequently, the question of law was decided in favor of the assessee, resulting in the quashing of the assessment order.
The HC invalidated the assessment framed under section 143(3) due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement under section 143(2)(ii), as the notice was not served within twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was filed. The court relied on established Supreme Court precedent affirming the necessity of timely issuance of the notice. The respondent's objection to the framing of a substantial question of law at the hearing was dismissed, with the HC affirming its authority to frame such questions under section 260-A(4). Consequently, the question of law was decided in favor of the assessee, resulting in the quashing of the assessment order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.