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" ?
Stay of demand - direction to depositing 40% of the outstanding demand - The court found the stance of requiring a 20% pre-deposition as a precondition for stay consideration, as adopted by the respondents, to be legally unsound. Further, it was highlighted that the PCIT exacerbated the petitioner's burden by demanding a 40% deposit without assessing the merits or hardship entailed. The High Court quashed the orders dated 22 November 2021 and 27 February 2024, remanding the matter to the AO for fresh consideration of the stay applications in accordance with the legal position elucidated in the NASSCOM judgment and without prejudice to the merits of the petitioner's challenge.
Stay of demand - direction to depositing 40% of the outstanding demand - The court found the stance of requiring a 20% pre-deposition as a precondition for stay consideration, as adopted by the respondents, to be legally unsound. Further, it was highlighted that the PCIT exacerbated the petitioner's burden by demanding a 40% deposit without assessing the merits or hardship entailed. The High Court quashed the orders dated 22 November 2021 and 27 February 2024, remanding the matter to the AO for fresh consideration of the stay applications in accordance with the legal position elucidated in the NASSCOM judgment and without prejudice to the merits of the petitioner's challenge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
