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" ?
Condonation of delay of 367 days in filing the appeal - Non-receipt of order - By issuing the certified copy of impugned order on 25.11.2019, respondent department itself agrees that the impugned order in appealable form was in fact served on 25.11.2019. If that was not case and the department was of the view that the impugned order had been served on the appellants when it was issued on 23.08.2018, they should have proceeded to recover the sums due from the appellant after expiry of the period of appeal. On the contrary department chose to stay mum - thus, there is definitely delay in filing of the appeal but delay has been explained by the appellants in their affidavit. - Delay condoned - AT
Condonation of delay of 367 days in filing the appeal - Non-receipt of order - By issuing the certified copy of impugned order on 25.11.2019, respondent department itself agrees that the impugned order in appealable form was in fact served on 25.11.2019. If that was not case and the department was of the view that the impugned order had been served on the appellants when it was issued on 23.08.2018, they should have proceeded to recover the sums due from the appellant after expiry of the period of appeal. On the contrary department chose to stay mum - thus, there is definitely delay in filing of the appeal but delay has been explained by the appellants in their affidavit. - Delay condoned - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
