Business deductions and transfer pricing issues: tribunal treatment of software write-offs, donation receipts, warranty provisions, and related expens...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2921 to 2940 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed all Revenue grounds, holding the impugned final assessment order vitiated. The AO's initiation under s.153C was invalid because a single consolidated satisfaction note for multiple distinct assessees and assessment years was recorded instead of distinct, year-wise satisfactions as mandated; seized material was not analyzed qua each assessment year. Applying the principle that incriminating material must be shown to pertain to a particular year, the Tribunal found non-compliance with ss.124-127 and s.153C. Further, because the assessee (a foreign non-resident and an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b)) did not receive a draft assessment as required by s.144C(1), the final order was vitiated and set aside.
The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed all Revenue grounds, holding the impugned final assessment order vitiated. The AO's initiation under s.153C was invalid because a single consolidated satisfaction note for multiple distinct assessees and assessment years was recorded instead of distinct, year-wise satisfactions as mandated; seized material was not analyzed qua each assessment year. Applying the principle that incriminating material must be shown to pertain to a particular year, the Tribunal found non-compliance with ss.124-127 and s.153C. Further, because the assessee (a foreign non-resident and an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b)) did not receive a draft assessment as required by s.144C(1), the final order was vitiated and set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
