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" ?
Assessment u/s 144C - Reply submitted by the assessee is not considered while passing the assessment order at Ext.P7 rather it is noted therein that petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice at Ext.P4. - At this stage, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent (Revenue) that there was no need of issuance of show cause notice at Ext.P4, particularly, when the respondent had chosen to issue the said show cause notice at Ext.P4 to the petitioner. The impugned order therefore prima facie suffers from the perversity as well as non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. - HC
Assessment u/s 144C - Reply submitted by the assessee is not considered while passing the assessment order at Ext.P7 rather it is noted therein that petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice at Ext.P4. - At this stage, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent (Revenue) that there was no need of issuance of show cause notice at Ext.P4, particularly, when the respondent had chosen to issue the said show cause notice at Ext.P4 to the petitioner. The impugned order therefore prima facie suffers from the perversity as well as non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.