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" ?
Rejection application for Revision u/s 264 in favor of assessee - Rejection on the ground the assessee has filing an appeal u/s 246 which was rejected by the CIT(A) due to non-payment of tax - the order passed by the 2nd respondent, in rejecting the appeal as void ab initio, cannot be considered as disposing the appeal by any of the above modes specified. Thus, it cannot be said that the order of assessment of the 3rd respondent is “subject of an appeal” placing embargo/ousting the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent under Section 264(4). - HC
Rejection application for Revision u/s 264 in favor of assessee - Rejection on the ground the assessee has filing an appeal u/s 246 which was rejected by the CIT(A) due to non-payment of tax - the order passed by the 2nd respondent, in rejecting the appeal as void ab initio, cannot be considered as disposing the appeal by any of the above modes specified. Thus, it cannot be said that the order of assessment of the 3rd respondent is “subject of an appeal” placing embargo/ousting the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent under Section 264(4). - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
