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" ?
ITAT held that spot verification conducted by the ACIT TDS for the relevant years was without authority of law and therefore void ab initio, because the proviso to section 133A required prior approval of the Joint Commissioner or Joint Director which was not obtained for FY 2012-13 and 2013-14. Consequently, any consequential action or orders passed under sections 201/201(1A) based on that verification could not be sustained. The tribunal quashed the impugned proceedings and directed that no cognizance be taken of the illegal survey material; the appeal of the assessee was allowed and the orders founded on the defective spot verification were set aside.
ITAT held that spot verification conducted by the ACIT TDS for the relevant years was without authority of law and therefore void ab initio, because the proviso to section 133A required prior approval of the Joint Commissioner or Joint Director which was not obtained for FY 2012-13 and 2013-14. Consequently, any consequential action or orders passed under sections 201/201(1A) based on that verification could not be sustained. The tribunal quashed the impugned proceedings and directed that no cognizance be taken of the illegal survey material; the appeal of the assessee was allowed and the orders founded on the defective spot verification were set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.