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 ITAT held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid due to the absence of valid sanction under section 151. The Pr.CIT's approval was mechanical, evidenced by a standard proforma bearing only a signature without a date or specific reasons, thereby failing to constitute proper authorization. Additionally, the Assessing Officer did not furnish the assessee with the reasons relied upon for reopening, violating procedural requirements. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as being contrary to the provisions of section 151, affirming that mechanical or non-specific sanctions and non-communication of reasons to the assessee vitiate the reopening process.
The ITAT held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid due to the absence of valid sanction under section 151. The Pr.CIT's approval was mechanical, evidenced by a standard proforma bearing only a signature without a date or specific reasons, thereby failing to constitute proper authorization. Additionally, the Assessing Officer did not furnish the assessee with the reasons relied upon for reopening, violating procedural requirements. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as being contrary to the provisions of section 151, affirming that mechanical or non-specific sanctions and non-communication of reasons to the assessee vitiate the reopening process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.