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" ?
Reassessment under sections 147/148 was challenged on the basis that the firm had ceased to exist after dissolution, but that objection was not accepted because the PAN in the firm's name continued to be shown as operative in Form 26AS and was reflected in banking transactions. The Tribunal also found that reopening had proceeded on an incorrect factual basis, as the information relied on related to another PAN and the Department did not establish that it belonged to the assessee. It therefore held that reopening cannot rest on wrong facts or wrong reasons, and remitted the matter only to verify whether the income appearing in Form 26AS had already been disclosed, with relief to follow if it had been.
Reassessment under sections 147/148 was challenged on the basis that the firm had ceased to exist after dissolution, but that objection was not accepted because the PAN in the firm's name continued to be shown as operative in Form 26AS and was reflected in banking transactions. The Tribunal also found that reopening had proceeded on an incorrect factual basis, as the information relied on related to another PAN and the Department did not establish that it belonged to the assessee. It therefore held that reopening cannot rest on wrong facts or wrong reasons, and remitted the matter only to verify whether the income appearing in Form 26AS had already been disclosed, with relief to follow if it had been.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.