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 invocation of section 153C requires concurrent satisfaction by the AOs of the searched person and the non-searched person that seized property or documents relate to a person other than the searched person; no such satisfaction was recorded. The impugned assessment did not rest on incriminating material found against the petitioner during search/seizure, but on information from the investigation unit and evidence collected during and after search proceedings. Consequently, the assessment under section 147 was proper and invocation of sections 153A/153C was unwarranted. The petitioner's challenge to framing proceedings under section 153C was rejected and the assessment under section 147 upheld.
HC held that invocation of section 153C requires concurrent satisfaction by the AOs of the searched person and the non-searched person that seized property or documents relate to a person other than the searched person; no such satisfaction was recorded. The impugned assessment did not rest on incriminating material found against the petitioner during search/seizure, but on information from the investigation unit and evidence collected during and after search proceedings. Consequently, the assessment under section 147 was proper and invocation of sections 153A/153C was unwarranted. The petitioner's challenge to framing proceedings under section 153C was rejected and the assessment under section 147 upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.