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" ?
Prior approval of the specified authority is a condition precedent for issuance of notice under section 148, and where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval must come from the authority prescribed under section 151(ii). As the approval for the section 148A(d) order was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority, the reassessment initiation was jurisdictionally defective. The Tribunal held that this non-compliance vitiated jurisdiction and rendered the notice under section 148 void ab initio. Accordingly, the notice, the consequential reopening proceedings, and the reassessment order were quashed.
Prior approval of the specified authority is a condition precedent for issuance of notice under section 148, and where more than three years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval must come from the authority prescribed under section 151(ii). As the approval for the section 148A(d) order was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the competent authority, the reassessment initiation was jurisdictionally defective. The Tribunal held that this non-compliance vitiated jurisdiction and rendered the notice under section 148 void ab initio. Accordingly, the notice, the consequential reopening proceedings, and the reassessment order were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.