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" ?
A reassessment notice issued under section 148 beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year required prior approval from the PCCIT under section 151(ii). Approval from the PCIT was insufficient because the controlling date for identifying the competent sanctioning authority is the date of issue of the section 148 notice. Sanction obtained at the section 148A stage could not replace the separate approval required for issuance of the reopening notice. The Tribunal therefore treated the notice as invalid and quashed the consequential reassessment.
A reassessment notice issued under section 148 beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year required prior approval from the PCCIT under section 151(ii). Approval from the PCIT was insufficient because the controlling date for identifying the competent sanctioning authority is the date of issue of the section 148 notice. Sanction obtained at the section 148A stage could not replace the separate approval required for issuance of the reopening notice. The Tribunal therefore treated the notice as invalid and quashed the consequential reassessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.