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 revision under section 263 is not warranted where the Assessing Officer (AO) has conducted a detailed enquiry, even if such enquiry is deemed inadequate, distinguishing it from a complete lack of enquiry. The Tribunal emphasized that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 arises only if the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and the AO's view is unsustainable in law. Since the AO raised queries during assessment, which the assessee responded to and which were accepted, the PCIT was unjustified in invoking section 263. The impugned revision order was set aside as the AO had taken a plausible view on the facts, and a second opinion cannot be substituted under section 263. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed accordingly.
The ITAT held that revision under section 263 is not warranted where the Assessing Officer (AO) has conducted a detailed enquiry, even if such enquiry is deemed inadequate, distinguishing it from a complete lack of enquiry. The Tribunal emphasized that revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 arises only if the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and the AO's view is unsustainable in law. Since the AO raised queries during assessment, which the assessee responded to and which were accepted, the PCIT was unjustified in invoking section 263. The impugned revision order was set aside as the AO had taken a plausible view on the facts, and a second opinion cannot be substituted under section 263. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
