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 as the notice was issued by an AO lacking jurisdiction. The AO at Bareilly, who issued the notice, failed to properly ascertain jurisdiction despite access to the assessee's PAN details, rendering the notice non-est in law. The subsequent transfer of proceedings to the correct AO at Lucknow occurred after the limitation period for issuing a section 148 notice had expired. The AO at Lucknow's issuance of a notice under section 142(1) and completion of assessment despite objections was held to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed under sections 147 read with 144 was quashed. The tribunal allowed the ground challenging jurisdiction and invalidity of the reopening notice, emphasizing that jurisdictional competence is a fundamental requirement for valid assessment proceedings.
The ITAT held that the reopening of assessment under section 147 was invalid as the notice was issued by an AO lacking jurisdiction. The AO at Bareilly, who issued the notice, failed to properly ascertain jurisdiction despite access to the assessee's PAN details, rendering the notice non-est in law. The subsequent transfer of proceedings to the correct AO at Lucknow occurred after the limitation period for issuing a section 148 notice had expired. The AO at Lucknow's issuance of a notice under section 142(1) and completion of assessment despite objections was held to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment order passed under sections 147 read with 144 was quashed. The tribunal allowed the ground challenging jurisdiction and invalidity of the reopening notice, emphasizing that jurisdictional competence is a fundamental requirement for valid assessment proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.