Head Office cost allocation requires prescribed transfer-pricing methods; treaty ceilings bar surcharge and cess, while duplicate taxation is excluded...
Cost-to-cost reimbursement of seconded employees is not service consideration; transfer-pricing markup was deleted and amalgamation amortisation allow...
Crystallisation of liability supports prior-period expense deduction, while functionally distinct divisions require separate transfer-pricing benchmar...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires transaction-specific FAR analysis before benchmarking business-support services provided to associated en...
Advance pricing agreement methodology can guide benchmarking for non-covered years when functions, assets, risks and activities remain materially unch...
Tax-audit exemption for substantially State-funded educational universities prevents audit-failure penalties where income qualifies for statutory exem...
Page of 4907
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 98136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Separate speaking orders on reopening objections are mandatory; deciding them within reassessment invalidates jurisdiction and precludes revival of stale proceedings.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Reassessment proceedings alleging bogus purchases require the Assessing Officer to decide objections to reopening through a separate speaking order and communicate it before completing reassessment. Incorporating the response to those objections only in the reassessment order does not satisfy this mandatory procedure and makes the assumption of jurisdiction unsustainable. Reassessments for the relevant assessment years were therefore quashed, while challenges to the alleged bogus-purchase additions became infructuous. Remand was declined because restoring jurisdictionally invalid proceedings would revive stale matters; the Revenue may proceed in accordance with law.
Reassessment proceedings alleging bogus purchases require the Assessing Officer to decide objections to reopening through a separate speaking order and communicate it before completing reassessment. Incorporating the response to those objections only in the reassessment order does not satisfy this mandatory procedure and makes the assumption of jurisdiction unsustainable. Reassessments for the relevant assessment years were therefore quashed, while challenges to the alleged bogus-purchase additions became infructuous. Remand was declined because restoring jurisdictionally invalid proceedings would revive stale matters; the Revenue may proceed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4907 
