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" ?
Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessing officer failed to conduct at least a prima facie inquiry into whether penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) should be initiated after declaring income under provisions for unexplained income. The tribunal held that determination of unexplained income alone does not ipso facto dispense with inquiry into compliance or infractions; absence of any prima facie finding on penalty renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, justifying revision and resulting adverse decision against the assessee.
Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessing officer failed to conduct at least a prima facie inquiry into whether penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) should be initiated after declaring income under provisions for unexplained income. The tribunal held that determination of unexplained income alone does not ipso facto dispense with inquiry into compliance or infractions; absence of any prima facie finding on penalty renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, justifying revision and resulting adverse decision against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.