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" ?
Validity Of Order passed u/s 73 - cryptic order - The High Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the inadequacy of the impugned order. It observed that the proper officer had failed to consider the detailed replies furnished by the petitioner, instead issuing a generic finding of no proper reply/explanation. The Court emphasized that the proper officer's duty was to assess the replies on their merit before forming an opinion. By neglecting to do so, the officer had not fulfilled this obligation and had not applied their mind to the petitioner's submissions. The matter was remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication.
Validity Of Order passed u/s 73 - cryptic order - The High Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the inadequacy of the impugned order. It observed that the proper officer had failed to consider the detailed replies furnished by the petitioner, instead issuing a generic finding of no proper reply/explanation. The Court emphasized that the proper officer's duty was to assess the replies on their merit before forming an opinion. By neglecting to do so, the officer had not fulfilled this obligation and had not applied their mind to the petitioner's submissions. The matter was remitted to the proper officer for re-adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
