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" ?
Levy of Interest - The respondent is not justified in levying interest from the original assessment year - In the case on hand, Rathna Residency is not the petitioner before this Court. It is only Rainbow Restaurant that is the petitioner before this Court. Rainbow Restaurant is contending that it cannot be considered as “a restaurant attached to a star hotel”. Thus the petitioner was under a bonefide impression that they are not liable to pay tax at a higher rate. Therefore, as per Section 42 of the Act, only from the date on which the petitioner's liability is quantified, the question of paying tax would arise. - HC
Levy of Interest - The respondent is not justified in levying interest from the original assessment year - In the case on hand, Rathna Residency is not the petitioner before this Court. It is only Rainbow Restaurant that is the petitioner before this Court. Rainbow Restaurant is contending that it cannot be considered as “a restaurant attached to a star hotel”. Thus the petitioner was under a bonefide impression that they are not liable to pay tax at a higher rate. Therefore, as per Section 42 of the Act, only from the date on which the petitioner's liability is quantified, the question of paying tax would arise. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
