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 assessment order passed under section 143(3) in the name of the transferee bank was invalid as no notice under section 143(2) was issued to it post-amalgamation. Section 292BB does not validate the order since no notice emanated from the department to the transferee bank, consistent with Supreme Court precedent. The merger scheme allowed continuation of pending proceedings of the transferor banks but was silent on proceedings initiated after the scheme's effective date. Since the assessment for AY 2019-20 was initiated after the scheme came into force, provisions relating to continuation of pending proceedings were inapplicable. Consequently, the assessment order framed against the transferee bank without proper jurisdiction was quashed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.
The ITAT held that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) in the name of the transferee bank was invalid as no notice under section 143(2) was issued to it post-amalgamation. Section 292BB does not validate the order since no notice emanated from the department to the transferee bank, consistent with Supreme Court precedent. The merger scheme allowed continuation of pending proceedings of the transferor banks but was silent on proceedings initiated after the scheme's effective date. Since the assessment for AY 2019-20 was initiated after the scheme came into force, provisions relating to continuation of pending proceedings were inapplicable. Consequently, the assessment order framed against the transferee bank without proper jurisdiction was quashed, and the assessee's cross-objections were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.