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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
ITAT quashed reassessment initiated u/s 147 as the AO lacked valid reasons to form belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The tribunal found evidentiary support for sales to an unnamed counterparty, receipt of sale proceeds through banking channels, and no rebuttal by the AO to impugn genuineness; mere non-filing of returns by the counterparty did not suffice to treat receipts as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 or to constitute a reason to form belief under s.147. Reopening was also held to amount to impermissible change of opinion since identical sales were examined and accepted in the original s.143(3) assessment; reassessment was therefore invalid.
ITAT quashed reassessment initiated u/s 147 as the AO lacked valid reasons to form belief that income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The tribunal found evidentiary support for sales to an unnamed counterparty, receipt of sale proceeds through banking channels, and no rebuttal by the AO to impugn genuineness; mere non-filing of returns by the counterparty did not suffice to treat receipts as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 or to constitute a reason to form belief under s.147. Reopening was also held to amount to impermissible change of opinion since identical sales were examined and accepted in the original s.143(3) assessment; reassessment was therefore invalid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.