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 held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the notice dated 19-07-2022 for A.Y. 2016-17 was issued beyond the three-year period without prior sanction from the authority specified under section 151 of the Act. Because the requisite sanction should have been accorded by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General (or, in their absence, Chief Commissioner or Director General), the notice issued with approval only of the Principal Commissioner was vitiated for lack of competent prior approval. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, quashed the reassessment notice and set aside consequential proceedings as without jurisdiction.
ITAT held that reassessment proceedings were invalid where the notice dated 19-07-2022 for A.Y. 2016-17 was issued beyond the three-year period without prior sanction from the authority specified under section 151 of the Act. Because the requisite sanction should have been accorded by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General (or, in their absence, Chief Commissioner or Director General), the notice issued with approval only of the Principal Commissioner was vitiated for lack of competent prior approval. The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, quashed the reassessment notice and set aside consequential proceedings as without jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.