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" ?
HC held that reassessment initiated after the four-year period was invalid insofar as it rested solely on a change of opinion and not on tangible material demonstrating escapement of income. The court observed that once the appellant had discharged the duty to disclose material facts and an assessment was completed under s.143(3) following notices and inquiries under ss.142 and 143(2), the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment absent concealment or false declaration. Finding no evidence of nondisclosure or concealment, the HC answered the legal question in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned reassessment orders, obviating the need to adjudicate the s.80-IB/80HHC deduction issues.
HC held that reassessment initiated after the four-year period was invalid insofar as it rested solely on a change of opinion and not on tangible material demonstrating escapement of income. The court observed that once the appellant had discharged the duty to disclose material facts and an assessment was completed under s.143(3) following notices and inquiries under ss.142 and 143(2), the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment absent concealment or false declaration. Finding no evidence of nondisclosure or concealment, the HC answered the legal question in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned reassessment orders, obviating the need to adjudicate the s.80-IB/80HHC deduction issues.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.