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 held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to non-service of proper notice under Section 148, as the initial notice was sent to an incorrect email ID. The petitioner only became aware of the proceedings upon receipt of a notice sent to the correct email on 18.10.2022, a fact not disputed by the DR. The court emphasized the principle of audi alteram partem, requiring fair hearing through proper notice to ensure an unbiased process. Since the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to contest the reassessment due to defective service of notice, the appeal was allowed, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
The HC held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to non-service of proper notice under Section 148, as the initial notice was sent to an incorrect email ID. The petitioner only became aware of the proceedings upon receipt of a notice sent to the correct email on 18.10.2022, a fact not disputed by the DR. The court emphasized the principle of audi alteram partem, requiring fair hearing through proper notice to ensure an unbiased process. Since the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to contest the reassessment due to defective service of notice, the appeal was allowed, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.