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 notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid as it failed to comply with the CBDT instructions, specifying only computer-aided scrutiny without clarifying the nature of scrutiny, thereby rendering all consequential proceedings invalid. Additionally, the notice was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer in violation of CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, further invalidating the assessment framed under section 143(3) without a mandatory notice under section 142. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order, affirming that issuance of an invalid notice under section 143(2) vitiates the entire assessment. The assessee's appeal was allowed on both grounds, resulting in the annulment of the assessment proceedings.
The ITAT held that the notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid as it failed to comply with the CBDT instructions, specifying only computer-aided scrutiny without clarifying the nature of scrutiny, thereby rendering all consequential proceedings invalid. Additionally, the notice was issued by a non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer in violation of CBDT Instruction No.1/2011, further invalidating the assessment framed under section 143(3) without a mandatory notice under section 142. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order, affirming that issuance of an invalid notice under section 143(2) vitiates the entire assessment. The assessee's appeal was allowed on both grounds, resulting in the annulment of the assessment proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.