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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Validity of reassessment order passed u/s 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax - barred by limitation or not - It is pertinent to note that Section 40(2) of the Act applies to a case of a dealer who is unregistered and who has not paid taxes and has fraudulently failed to pay tax which results in punishment under Section 79 of the Act - the condition precedent for invocation of Section 40(2) of the Act have not been fulfilled in the case of the respondent and hence, the aforesaid provision does not apply to the case of the respondent. - the proceeding has to be held to be barred by limitation in view of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 46(1) of the Act. - HC
Validity of reassessment order passed u/s 39(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax - barred by limitation or not - It is pertinent to note that Section 40(2) of the Act applies to a case of a dealer who is unregistered and who has not paid taxes and has fraudulently failed to pay tax which results in punishment under Section 79 of the Act - the condition precedent for invocation of Section 40(2) of the Act have not been fulfilled in the case of the respondent and hence, the aforesaid provision does not apply to the case of the respondent. - the proceeding has to be held to be barred by limitation in view of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 46(1) of the Act. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
