Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had already initiated penalty proceedings, because the revisional authority could not invoke section 263 merely to substitute the penalty provision under which those proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal found that, once penalty action had been commenced, the assessment order could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on this ground alone. The foundation of the revisional order was therefore legally untenable, and the assessee succeeded.
Revision under section 263 was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had already initiated penalty proceedings, because the revisional authority could not invoke section 263 merely to substitute the penalty provision under which those proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal found that, once penalty action had been commenced, the assessment order could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on this ground alone. The foundation of the revisional order was therefore legally untenable, and the assessee succeeded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
