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 ITAT held that a CIT(A) cannot direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine a claim under section 10(23C)(iv) where the assessment record shows that the provision was already considered during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found the appellate direction unnecessary and unsupported by the record, especially since the issue had been examined in the section 143(3) assessment and no fresh basis existed for reopening the matter through appellate directions. It therefore set aside and quashed the order passed under section 250 and allowed the assessee's challenge to that direction.
The ITAT held that a CIT(A) cannot direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine a claim under section 10(23C)(iv) where the assessment record shows that the provision was already considered during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found the appellate direction unnecessary and unsupported by the record, especially since the issue had been examined in the section 143(3) assessment and no fresh basis existed for reopening the matter through appellate directions. It therefore set aside and quashed the order passed under section 250 and allowed the assessee's challenge to that direction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.