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 142(1) was invalid as it failed to specify the sender, recipient, and subject, thereby not complying with the prescribed mode of transmission under section 144B(6)(ii)(a). Consequently, the notice was deemed not issued or served to the assessee. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the tribunal ruled that the assessment order based on such defective notice is arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and void ab initio. Accordingly, the assessment was quashed, rendering all subsequent proceedings non-est in law. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that the notice issued under section 142(1) was invalid as it failed to specify the sender, recipient, and subject, thereby not complying with the prescribed mode of transmission under section 144B(6)(ii)(a). Consequently, the notice was deemed not issued or served to the assessee. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the tribunal ruled that the assessment order based on such defective notice is arbitrary, legally unsustainable, and void ab initio. Accordingly, the assessment was quashed, rendering all subsequent proceedings non-est in law. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.