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 allowed the assessee's appeal against exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under s.263 by the PCIT, holding that the AO had in fact made inquiries into the assessee's claim of substantial agricultural income. Notices under s.142(1), a show-cause notice and filed responses with documents demonstrated that the AO considered and accepted a possible view; any alleged inadequacy of inquiry did not equate to "no inquiry." Explanation 2 to s.263 does not permit the PCIT to reappraise evidence and substitute his opinion where inquiries were made and a plausible conclusion recorded. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was therefore invalid and the revision order was set aside.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under s.263 by the PCIT, holding that the AO had in fact made inquiries into the assessee's claim of substantial agricultural income. Notices under s.142(1), a show-cause notice and filed responses with documents demonstrated that the AO considered and accepted a possible view; any alleged inadequacy of inquiry did not equate to "no inquiry." Explanation 2 to s.263 does not permit the PCIT to reappraise evidence and substitute his opinion where inquiries were made and a plausible conclusion recorded. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was therefore invalid and the revision order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.