Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 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 on remand after an order under s.254, the A.O. could only pass a fresh assessment pursuant to s.153(2A) within one year from the end of the financial year in which the s.254 order was made; where the Tribunal's s.254 order dated 31/08/2012 thus required finalisation by 31/03/2014, the impugned final assessment issued thereafter was time-barred. Applying the statutory construction that "received" equates to "having knowledge," the Tribunal set aside the belated assessment as invalid for breach of limitation. The taxpayer's appeal was therefore partly allowed and the assessment annulled to the extent time-barred.
ITAT held that on remand after an order under s.254, the A.O. could only pass a fresh assessment pursuant to s.153(2A) within one year from the end of the financial year in which the s.254 order was made; where the Tribunal's s.254 order dated 31/08/2012 thus required finalisation by 31/03/2014, the impugned final assessment issued thereafter was time-barred. Applying the statutory construction that "received" equates to "having knowledge," the Tribunal set aside the belated assessment as invalid for breach of limitation. The taxpayer's appeal was therefore partly allowed and the assessment annulled to the extent time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.