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" ?
Transfer of case u/s 127(2) - Jurisdiction in case of partners of partnership firm - the petitioner was required to disclose that its partners were residing at Faridabad and the same was a relevant fact. We do not agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not required to disclose the residence of its partners. The petition is supported by the affidavit of the Partner, where he has given his address of Delhi, when it is admitted that he is residing at Faridabad. Once the matter concerns territoriality, the place of residence cannot be said to be not relevant. - HC
Transfer of case u/s 127(2) - Jurisdiction in case of partners of partnership firm - the petitioner was required to disclose that its partners were residing at Faridabad and the same was a relevant fact. We do not agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not required to disclose the residence of its partners. The petition is supported by the affidavit of the Partner, where he has given his address of Delhi, when it is admitted that he is residing at Faridabad. Once the matter concerns territoriality, the place of residence cannot be said to be not relevant. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
