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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revenue-sharing under a participative railway infrastructure arrangement was treated as a joint venture-like model, not as business support service, because freight collections were shared as a return on capital investment with profit and not as consideration for any identified service. The text notes that there was no service provider-recipient relationship or direct quid pro quo, so the demand on that footing was not sustainable. It also records that a bona fide belief, supported by prior Tribunal rulings on similar arrangements, defeated suppression, making the extended limitation period unavailable.
Revenue-sharing under a participative railway infrastructure arrangement was treated as a joint venture-like model, not as business support service, because freight collections were shared as a return on capital investment with profit and not as consideration for any identified service. The text notes that there was no service provider-recipient relationship or direct quid pro quo, so the demand on that footing was not sustainable. It also records that a bona fide belief, supported by prior Tribunal rulings on similar arrangements, defeated suppression, making the extended limitation period unavailable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.