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 the reassessment for AY 2018-19 was invalidly initiated because the AO issued notice under section 148 beyond three years without obtaining prior approval from an authority specified under section 151(ii) (Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General or, where absent, Chief Commissioner/Director General). Approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was not a statutory substitute and therefore did not confer jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment framed under sections 147 read with 144 and 144B lacked valid assumption of jurisdiction and was quashed. The appeal by the assessee was allowed and the reassessment order set aside.
ITAT held that the reassessment for AY 2018-19 was invalidly initiated because the AO issued notice under section 148 beyond three years without obtaining prior approval from an authority specified under section 151(ii) (Principal Chief Commissioner/Principal Director General or, where absent, Chief Commissioner/Director General). Approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax was not a statutory substitute and therefore did not confer jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment framed under sections 147 read with 144 and 144B lacked valid assumption of jurisdiction and was quashed. The appeal by the assessee was allowed and the reassessment order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.