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...
ITAT ordinary territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who issued the assessment order, rather than the assessee's location or that of the Commissioner (Appeals). The President's procedural rule-making power does not extend to transferring a pending appeal between Benches situated in different States. Where the assessment order originated from an Assessing Officer at Chennai, the Mumbai Bench lacked jurisdiction over both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's related cross-objection. Both were dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to approach the appropriate Bench; merits remained open.
ITAT ordinary territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who issued the assessment order, rather than the assessee's location or that of the Commissioner (Appeals). The President's procedural rule-making power does not extend to transferring a pending appeal between Benches situated in different States. Where the assessment order originated from an Assessing Officer at Chennai, the Mumbai Bench lacked jurisdiction over both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's related cross-objection. Both were dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to approach the appropriate Bench; merits remained open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
