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 notice under section 148 was unsigned and therefore void ab initio; consequentially the reassessment proceedings and the assessment framed thereon were quashed and unsustainable. The Tribunal found the AO failed to verify the assessee's evidences, did not identify specific defects, and neglected to issue statutory summons under section 133(6) to relevant purchasers; reliance on unexamined assertions rendered the additions unjustified. Investments traced to earlier assessment years, previously accepted by the department, could not be reopened in the year of sale without valid grounds. The appeal of the assessee was allowed and the reassessment order set aside.
ITAT held that the notice under section 148 was unsigned and therefore void ab initio; consequentially the reassessment proceedings and the assessment framed thereon were quashed and unsustainable. The Tribunal found the AO failed to verify the assessee's evidences, did not identify specific defects, and neglected to issue statutory summons under section 133(6) to relevant purchasers; reliance on unexamined assertions rendered the additions unjustified. Investments traced to earlier assessment years, previously accepted by the department, could not be reopened in the year of sale without valid grounds. The appeal of the assessee was allowed and the reassessment order set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.