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" ?
HC examined the challenge to an assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r/w s.144B on two grounds. On the first, alleging breach of natural justice, HC held against Assessee A, noting repeated show-cause notices, failure to furnish PAN, addresses, and details to establish creditworthiness, and thus no denial of fair opportunity. On the second, alleging non-compliance with mandatory faceless assessment under s.144B (effective from 01.04.2021), HC found Revenue had offered no justification for not following the faceless procedure and was silent in its counter. Holding the faceless regime mandatory, HC applied settled law, declared the assessment proceedings and order unsustainable, and quashed/set aside the impugned assessment, thereby allowing the petition on this ground in favour of Assessee A and against Revenue.
HC examined the challenge to an assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r/w s.144B on two grounds. On the first, alleging breach of natural justice, HC held against Assessee A, noting repeated show-cause notices, failure to furnish PAN, addresses, and details to establish creditworthiness, and thus no denial of fair opportunity. On the second, alleging non-compliance with mandatory faceless assessment under s.144B (effective from 01.04.2021), HC found Revenue had offered no justification for not following the faceless procedure and was silent in its counter. Holding the faceless regime mandatory, HC applied settled law, declared the assessment proceedings and order unsustainable, and quashed/set aside the impugned assessment, thereby allowing the petition on this ground in favour of Assessee A and against Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.