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 issue concerns whether an Assessing Officer may rely on a Valuation Officer (DVO) report delivered after the six month deadline in section 142A(6) to invoke the exclusion period under Explanation 1(v) to section 153 and thereby extend limitation. The HC agreed with the Tribunal that section 142A(6) requires the report within six months and that the exclusion-period and its proviso apply only where the report falls within that regime; a belated DVO report has no legal value to extend limitation, and the Principal Commissioner was not justified in revising the assessment under revision powers. Revenue appeal dismissed.
The issue concerns whether an Assessing Officer may rely on a Valuation Officer (DVO) report delivered after the six month deadline in section 142A(6) to invoke the exclusion period under Explanation 1(v) to section 153 and thereby extend limitation. The HC agreed with the Tribunal that section 142A(6) requires the report within six months and that the exclusion-period and its proviso apply only where the report falls within that regime; a belated DVO report has no legal value to extend limitation, and the Principal Commissioner was not justified in revising the assessment under revision powers. Revenue appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.