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" ?
Refund of TDS could not be denied solely because the return was not e-verified within time, where CPC later condoned the delay and accepted the verification. The tax was admittedly borne by the assessee, and once condonation was granted, reliance on the original technical defect was unsustainable. The Tribunal applied the principle that tax can be retained only with authority of law and that refusal to process the refund in these circumstances would offend Article 265 and amount to unjust enrichment by the Revenue. The rejection of the rectification claim and the supporting appellate order were set aside, and refund was directed to be processed in accordance with law.
Refund of TDS could not be denied solely because the return was not e-verified within time, where CPC later condoned the delay and accepted the verification. The tax was admittedly borne by the assessee, and once condonation was granted, reliance on the original technical defect was unsustainable. The Tribunal applied the principle that tax can be retained only with authority of law and that refusal to process the refund in these circumstances would offend Article 265 and amount to unjust enrichment by the Revenue. The rejection of the rectification claim and the supporting appellate order were set aside, and refund was directed to be processed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.