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" ?
HC held that the AO committed illegality by ignoring a timely-filed revised return under s.139(5) (filed 23.02.2015) and proceeding on the original return pursuant to notice under s.143(2), rendering the assessment order invalid. The ITAT erred in recording an incorrect revised-return date and wrongly treating the defect as mere irregularity. The HC held the original return stood obliterated upon filing of the revised return, and s.143 applies equally to revised returns. The HC set aside the AO's assessment order, held the ITAT's conclusion perverse, and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh determination of taxable income after taking into account the revised return, in accordance with law.
HC held that the AO committed illegality by ignoring a timely-filed revised return under s.139(5) (filed 23.02.2015) and proceeding on the original return pursuant to notice under s.143(2), rendering the assessment order invalid. The ITAT erred in recording an incorrect revised-return date and wrongly treating the defect as mere irregularity. The HC held the original return stood obliterated upon filing of the revised return, and s.143 applies equally to revised returns. The HC set aside the AO's assessment order, held the ITAT's conclusion perverse, and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh determination of taxable income after taking into account the revised return, in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.