Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 96508 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Time Limitation - Curable Defect - Electronic Filing Compliance - Procedural Compliances vs. Substantive Rights: - The High Court found that the petitioners complied with the e-filing requirements, evidenced by the generation of an e-filing number. This compliance, despite the subsequent procedural deficiency, was considered as filing within the limitation period. The "Document not serial" error, a result of technical failures, was deemed a curable defect. Importantly, the Court opined that procedural compliances, including those encountered in the e-filing process, should not defeat the substantive rights of the parties. The essence of the ruling was that technical glitches should not bar access to legal remedies, particularly when the initial attempt to file was made within the prescribed limitation period.
Time Limitation - Curable Defect - Electronic Filing Compliance - Procedural Compliances vs. Substantive Rights: - The High Court found that the petitioners complied with the e-filing requirements, evidenced by the generation of an e-filing number. This compliance, despite the subsequent procedural deficiency, was considered as filing within the limitation period. The "Document not serial" error, a result of technical failures, was deemed a curable defect. Importantly, the Court opined that procedural compliances, including those encountered in the e-filing process, should not defeat the substantive rights of the parties. The essence of the ruling was that technical glitches should not bar access to legal remedies, particularly when the initial attempt to file was made within the prescribed limitation period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
