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 section 147 was invalid where the AO reopened the case on AIR information on the premise that the assessee was a non-PAN holder and had not filed a return, although the original return had already disclosed the property transfer, capital gains particulars and exemption claim. The Tribunal also found that the statutory notice under section 148, which confers jurisdiction for reassessment, was never served and no effective attempt at service was shown. As the reopening was also initiated beyond six years from the relevant assessment year, the reassessment was held to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
Reassessment under section 147 was invalid where the AO reopened the case on AIR information on the premise that the assessee was a non-PAN holder and had not filed a return, although the original return had already disclosed the property transfer, capital gains particulars and exemption claim. The Tribunal also found that the statutory notice under section 148, which confers jurisdiction for reassessment, was never served and no effective attempt at service was shown. As the reopening was also initiated beyond six years from the relevant assessment year, the reassessment was held to be without jurisdiction and void ab initio.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.