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" ?
Penalty u/s 271B - delayed submission of the audit report - assessee’s only case is that it was not aware of the requirement of law - The explanation is not valid on facts as well. The assessee could validly argue non-conduct of tax audit under the Act, stating to have obtained the said report for the first time, only where it had furnished the other audit report, i.e., under the Kerala Act, of which it was aware, by the due date, i.e., 31.10.2013. The requirement of filing both the audit reports emanates from s. 44AB. It could not thus possibly be that the assessee is aware of one requirement and not of the other. - AT
Penalty u/s 271B - delayed submission of the audit report - assessee’s only case is that it was not aware of the requirement of law - The explanation is not valid on facts as well. The assessee could validly argue non-conduct of tax audit under the Act, stating to have obtained the said report for the first time, only where it had furnished the other audit report, i.e., under the Kerala Act, of which it was aware, by the due date, i.e., 31.10.2013. The requirement of filing both the audit reports emanates from s. 44AB. It could not thus possibly be that the assessee is aware of one requirement and not of the other. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
