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" ?
The HC held that both the JAO and the FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under s.148, consistent with statutory mandate in s.151A; co-ordinate bench precedent in the same territorial jurisdiction remains binding notwithstanding an appeal pending before the apex court, subject to the limited carve-out permitting Revenue to continue proceedings with protective directions in prior litigations. The Supreme Court authority relied upon by petitioners does not assist on these specific facts. In consequence, the appeals by the petitioners are devoid of merit and are dismissed, leaving the reassessment proceedings initiated by either JAO or FAO operative within the territorial jurisdiction.
The HC held that both the JAO and the FAO possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under s.148, consistent with statutory mandate in s.151A; co-ordinate bench precedent in the same territorial jurisdiction remains binding notwithstanding an appeal pending before the apex court, subject to the limited carve-out permitting Revenue to continue proceedings with protective directions in prior litigations. The Supreme Court authority relied upon by petitioners does not assist on these specific facts. In consequence, the appeals by the petitioners are devoid of merit and are dismissed, leaving the reassessment proceedings initiated by either JAO or FAO operative within the territorial jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.