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" ?
Assessment under section 153C was held time-barred because, in a joint warrant situation, limitation under section 153B had to be computed with reference to the last panchanama in the assessee's own case; the later panchanama of another person could not extend time, and the assessments were quashed. Jurisdiction under section 153C also failed because the satisfaction note was generic and did not record year-wise nexus between seized material and alleged undisclosed income, making the assumption of jurisdiction invalid. The addition for alleged commission income was deleted because it rested only on uncorroborated third-party statements, with no independent incriminating material and no cross-examination opportunity.
Assessment under section 153C was held time-barred because, in a joint warrant situation, limitation under section 153B had to be computed with reference to the last panchanama in the assessee's own case; the later panchanama of another person could not extend time, and the assessments were quashed. Jurisdiction under section 153C also failed because the satisfaction note was generic and did not record year-wise nexus between seized material and alleged undisclosed income, making the assumption of jurisdiction invalid. The addition for alleged commission income was deleted because it rested only on uncorroborated third-party statements, with no independent incriminating material and no cross-examination opportunity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.