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" ?
ITAT affirms that the AO's invocation of s.153C was invalid because no individualized recorded satisfaction was made for each assessee and the purported satisfaction failed to specify assessment year(s), being a consolidated recording for 15 companies without AY-specific analysis of seized material; the tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision accordingly. The assessee qualifies as an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b), thereby triggering the mandatory requirement under s.144C(1) to issue a draft assessment order, which the AO omitted. Consequently, the final assessment orders are vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory mandate to issue draft assessment orders and for improper application of s.153C.
ITAT affirms that the AO's invocation of s.153C was invalid because no individualized recorded satisfaction was made for each assessee and the purported satisfaction failed to specify assessment year(s), being a consolidated recording for 15 companies without AY-specific analysis of seized material; the tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision accordingly. The assessee qualifies as an "eligible assessee" under s.144C(15)(b), thereby triggering the mandatory requirement under s.144C(1) to issue a draft assessment order, which the AO omitted. Consequently, the final assessment orders are vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory mandate to issue draft assessment orders and for improper application of s.153C.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.