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" ?
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the scrutiny assessment. It held that no valid statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued or served, as the email communication contained no attached, digitally signed notice and was never re-served, rendering the assessment void ab initio. Separately, the approval u/s 153D was found invalid as it was granted through a consolidated, mechanical letter for multiple years, without reference to seized material, appraisal report, or draft orders, and without demonstrating independent application of mind. As approval u/s 153D is a mandatory substantive safeguard, the assessment was held unsustainable in law.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the scrutiny assessment. It held that no valid statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued or served, as the email communication contained no attached, digitally signed notice and was never re-served, rendering the assessment void ab initio. Separately, the approval u/s 153D was found invalid as it was granted through a consolidated, mechanical letter for multiple years, without reference to seized material, appraisal report, or draft orders, and without demonstrating independent application of mind. As approval u/s 153D is a mandatory substantive safeguard, the assessment was held unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.