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" ?
The ITAT held that the assessee's belated challenge to the AO's jurisdiction under s.124 was not maintainable, as no objection was raised before the AO or CIT(A) within the statutory framework of s.124(3). Section 124 was treated as a self-contained code, and the additional ground on jurisdiction was dismissed. However, on the issue of addition towards alleged long-term capital gains, the ITAT found procedural infirmity because the CIT(A) relied on the AO's remand report without granting the assessee an opportunity to rebut it. In the interest of justice, the matter on capital gains was remanded to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
The ITAT held that the assessee's belated challenge to the AO's jurisdiction under s.124 was not maintainable, as no objection was raised before the AO or CIT(A) within the statutory framework of s.124(3). Section 124 was treated as a self-contained code, and the additional ground on jurisdiction was dismissed. However, on the issue of addition towards alleged long-term capital gains, the ITAT found procedural infirmity because the CIT(A) relied on the AO's remand report without granting the assessee an opportunity to rebut it. In the interest of justice, the matter on capital gains was remanded to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.