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" ?
Reopening of assessment depends on prior approval from the authority specified for the applicable time-bar category; where more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval required from the higher authority under the substituted scheme. The High Court found approval was obtained from the lower specified authority instead of the required higher authority, rendering the s.148 notice, the s.148A(d) order and consequent reassessment and penalty proceedings jurisdictionally invalid. The HC quashed and set aside the notice, the reassessment order and the penalty notice, deciding in favour of the assessee.
Reopening of assessment depends on prior approval from the authority specified for the applicable time-bar category; where more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval required from the higher authority under the substituted scheme. The High Court found approval was obtained from the lower specified authority instead of the required higher authority, rendering the s.148 notice, the s.148A(d) order and consequent reassessment and penalty proceedings jurisdictionally invalid. The HC quashed and set aside the notice, the reassessment order and the penalty notice, deciding in favour of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.