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 ITAT quashed the assessment framed under s. 143(3) as the statutory scrutiny notice under s. 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional ITO instead of the DCIT who alone had jurisdiction given the assessee's return exceeded ₹20 lakh. The Tribunal held the assessment initiation was vitiated by jurisdictional defect, not curable, because the required jurisdictional officer did not issue the s. 143(2) notice nor complete the assessment. Having regard to settled coordinate bench rulings, the assessment was declared invalid and set aside, and the assessee's additional grounds challenging validity were allowed.
The ITAT quashed the assessment framed under s. 143(3) as the statutory scrutiny notice under s. 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional ITO instead of the DCIT who alone had jurisdiction given the assessee's return exceeded ₹20 lakh. The Tribunal held the assessment initiation was vitiated by jurisdictional defect, not curable, because the required jurisdictional officer did not issue the s. 143(2) notice nor complete the assessment. Having regard to settled coordinate bench rulings, the assessment was declared invalid and set aside, and the assessee's additional grounds challenging validity were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.