Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 96463 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 the assessment framed u/s 153A was invalid as the alleged incriminating material, in the form of a statement recorded u/s 132(4), was obtained during search on a third party and not from the possession of the assessee. Such material, if construed as belonging or pertaining to a person other than the searched party, could only be used by invoking s.153C after proper satisfaction and transmission to the AO having jurisdiction over that other person. The mandatory procedure under s.153C was not followed, and the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the third-party witness. Consequently, the additions made under s.153A were held unsustainable and the assessee's appeal was allowed in full.
ITAT held that the assessment framed u/s 153A was invalid as the alleged incriminating material, in the form of a statement recorded u/s 132(4), was obtained during search on a third party and not from the possession of the assessee. Such material, if construed as belonging or pertaining to a person other than the searched party, could only be used by invoking s.153C after proper satisfaction and transmission to the AO having jurisdiction over that other person. The mandatory procedure under s.153C was not followed, and the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the third-party witness. Consequently, the additions made under s.153A were held unsustainable and the assessee's appeal was allowed in full.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.