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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
A scrutiny notice issued without established prior administrative approval was held void ab initio, and the resulting assessment under section 143(3) was annulled for want of jurisdiction. Additions based on third-party seized material also failed because the Assessing Officer had not recorded the requisite satisfaction with competent approval, so the statutory jurisdictional preconditions were not met. The first appellate authority exceeded its power by converting an unexplained-money addition into a trading addition and by introducing a new basis of assessment. Alleged suppressed sales, unexplained money, unaccounted purchases, and estimated unexplained expenditure were deleted because the loose papers were uncorroborated, cross-examination weakened the nexus, and section 69C was applied on conjecture rather than proof.
A scrutiny notice issued without established prior administrative approval was held void ab initio, and the resulting assessment under section 143(3) was annulled for want of jurisdiction. Additions based on third-party seized material also failed because the Assessing Officer had not recorded the requisite satisfaction with competent approval, so the statutory jurisdictional preconditions were not met. The first appellate authority exceeded its power by converting an unexplained-money addition into a trading addition and by introducing a new basis of assessment. Alleged suppressed sales, unexplained money, unaccounted purchases, and estimated unexplained expenditure were deleted because the loose papers were uncorroborated, cross-examination weakened the nexus, and section 69C was applied on conjecture rather than proof.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.