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 special audit u/s 142(2A) - The Jharkhand High Court upheld the orders for a special audit of the petitioner’s accounts for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2022-23. The court found that the discrepancies in the petitioner’s accounts justified the special audit and that the statutory requirements for ordering such an audit were met. While the court acknowledged a procedural lapse in providing insufficient time for the petitioner to respond, it held that this did not cause significant prejudice to warrant interference. The petitioner’s writ petitions were dismissed, with the court providing additional time for the audit and specific directions to ensure a fair audit process.
Validity of special audit u/s 142(2A) - The Jharkhand High Court upheld the orders for a special audit of the petitioner’s accounts for the assessment years 2020-21 and 2022-23. The court found that the discrepancies in the petitioner’s accounts justified the special audit and that the statutory requirements for ordering such an audit were met. While the court acknowledged a procedural lapse in providing insufficient time for the petitioner to respond, it held that this did not cause significant prejudice to warrant interference. The petitioner’s writ petitions were dismissed, with the court providing additional time for the audit and specific directions to ensure a fair audit process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
