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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, a liability admitted during enquiry or investigation was not treated as final quantification of duty by itself. Eligibility required the duty payable in the pending matter to be quantified on or before the statutory cut-off date, and a partial admission during investigation could not satisfy that requirement. On that basis, the rejection of the declaration was upheld because the tax liability had not been finally quantified by 30.06.2019. The hearing before the Designated Committee arose only after eligibility was established, so no prior hearing was required where the declarant was ex facie ineligible.
Under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, a liability admitted during enquiry or investigation was not treated as final quantification of duty by itself. Eligibility required the duty payable in the pending matter to be quantified on or before the statutory cut-off date, and a partial admission during investigation could not satisfy that requirement. On that basis, the rejection of the declaration was upheld because the tax liability had not been finally quantified by 30.06.2019. The hearing before the Designated Committee arose only after eligibility was established, so no prior hearing was required where the declarant was ex facie ineligible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.