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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that notices issued under section 143(2) on an address not reflected in the ITR were invalid where the assessee had provided and the AO had acknowledged the correct address; reliance by the lower authority on addresses from MCA or PAN records could not supplant a specifically intimated last known address. The Tribunal held that the presumption of service by substituted methods requires that the notice be sent to the last known correct address communicated to the AO, and distinguished the precedent relied upon by the CIT(A) as inapplicable on the facts. Consequently the assessment communication founded on service at the incorrect address was set aside.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that notices issued under section 143(2) on an address not reflected in the ITR were invalid where the assessee had provided and the AO had acknowledged the correct address; reliance by the lower authority on addresses from MCA or PAN records could not supplant a specifically intimated last known address. The Tribunal held that the presumption of service by substituted methods requires that the notice be sent to the last known correct address communicated to the AO, and distinguished the precedent relied upon by the CIT(A) as inapplicable on the facts. Consequently the assessment communication founded on service at the incorrect address was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.