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 HC held that reopening the assessment under Section 147 against the joint owner wife was unsustainable, as there was no reason to believe that her income had escaped assessment for AY 2021-22. The wife did not contribute financially to the property purchase, which was fully funded by her husband, supported by bank statements. The Section 148 notice issued to her was invalid since the AO's belief of escapement was unfounded. The Court relied on precedent where a similar reassessment against a non-earning spouse was quashed due to lack of evidence linking the property purchase to her income. Consequently, the wife's appeal was allowed, setting aside the reopening notice and assessment proceedings against her.
The HC held that reopening the assessment under Section 147 against the joint owner wife was unsustainable, as there was no reason to believe that her income had escaped assessment for AY 2021-22. The wife did not contribute financially to the property purchase, which was fully funded by her husband, supported by bank statements. The Section 148 notice issued to her was invalid since the AO's belief of escapement was unfounded. The Court relied on precedent where a similar reassessment against a non-earning spouse was quashed due to lack of evidence linking the property purchase to her income. Consequently, the wife's appeal was allowed, setting aside the reopening notice and assessment proceedings against her.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.