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 quashed the reopening under s.147/s.148, holding that the reasons to believe relied upon for reassessment had already been considered by the AO in the original assessment order. The court found no fresh material justifying exercise of the re-assessment jurisdiction and reiterated that the AO cannot review or revisit his earlier assessment to reexamine documents or evidence already placed before him. Consequently the reopening notice and resultant proceedings were set aside and the original assessment upheld in favour of the assessee, with the revenue precluded from initiating reassessment merely to obtain a second look at material previously considered.
The HC quashed the reopening under s.147/s.148, holding that the reasons to believe relied upon for reassessment had already been considered by the AO in the original assessment order. The court found no fresh material justifying exercise of the re-assessment jurisdiction and reiterated that the AO cannot review or revisit his earlier assessment to reexamine documents or evidence already placed before him. Consequently the reopening notice and resultant proceedings were set aside and the original assessment upheld in favour of the assessee, with the revenue precluded from initiating reassessment merely to obtain a second look at material previously considered.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.