Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 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 as the approval letter was improperly issued by an incompetent authority and consolidated for multiple independent assessees without independent satisfaction, violating section 151. Consequently, the issuance of notice under section 148 and subsequent proceedings were quashed. Regarding unexplained investments under section 69, the CIT(A) failed to exercise co-terminus powers to direct further inquiry, leading to a premature rejection of the assessee's evidence; thus, the additions were deleted. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for non-compliance with notices was also deleted considering the appellant's occupation and genuine reasons for non-compliance. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the reassessment and penalty imposed by the revenue authorities.
The ITAT held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid as the approval letter was improperly issued by an incompetent authority and consolidated for multiple independent assessees without independent satisfaction, violating section 151. Consequently, the issuance of notice under section 148 and subsequent proceedings were quashed. Regarding unexplained investments under section 69, the CIT(A) failed to exercise co-terminus powers to direct further inquiry, leading to a premature rejection of the assessee's evidence; thus, the additions were deleted. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for non-compliance with notices was also deleted considering the appellant's occupation and genuine reasons for non-compliance. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the reassessment and penalty imposed by the revenue authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.