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" ?
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the reassessment. It held that the notice issued u/s 148 was unsigned and therefore non est in law, vitiating the entire reassessment order. ITAT further held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as reasons recorded for reopening were not supplied to the assessee before issuance of notice u/s 143(2), thereby denying the assessee its right to challenge jurisdiction and breaching mandatory procedural safeguards. On merits, ITAT deleted the addition u/s 68, noting that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing confirmations, ITR acknowledgments, bank statements and audited financials of the loan creditor, and had repaid the loan, which the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly consider.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal and quashed the reassessment. It held that the notice issued u/s 148 was unsigned and therefore non est in law, vitiating the entire reassessment order. ITAT further held that reassessment proceedings were invalid as reasons recorded for reopening were not supplied to the assessee before issuance of notice u/s 143(2), thereby denying the assessee its right to challenge jurisdiction and breaching mandatory procedural safeguards. On merits, ITAT deleted the addition u/s 68, noting that the assessee had discharged the onus by furnishing confirmations, ITR acknowledgments, bank statements and audited financials of the loan creditor, and had repaid the loan, which the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly consider.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.