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 limitation turned on whether an earlier refund application, allegedly filed on 02.06.2011, had in fact been received by the Department; if receipt is proved, that date would govern limitation and the claim would not be time-barred. Because there was no record evidence of receipt, the question was remanded to the refund sanctioning authority for verification. The appellate authority had also exceeded the scope of the original rejection by introducing a new ground on proof of payment; that reasoning was set aside. On remand, the authority may examine double payment and whether the statutory bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 is satisfied.
Refund limitation turned on whether an earlier refund application, allegedly filed on 02.06.2011, had in fact been received by the Department; if receipt is proved, that date would govern limitation and the claim would not be time-barred. Because there was no record evidence of receipt, the question was remanded to the refund sanctioning authority for verification. The appellate authority had also exceeded the scope of the original rejection by introducing a new ground on proof of payment; that reasoning was set aside. On remand, the authority may examine double payment and whether the statutory bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 is satisfied.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.