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" ?
Revision u/s 263 - Suo moto revisional proceeding initiated - The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Show Cause Notice and the ex-parte Order issued u/s 263 for the assessment year 2017-18. The Court concluded that the initiation of proceedings was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The assessment order, even if erroneous, was not prejudicial to the revenue, as the discrepancy in long-term capital gains was related to exempt income. The judgment reaffirmed the necessity of both conditions being met for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice.
Revision u/s 263 - Suo moto revisional proceeding initiated - The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Show Cause Notice and the ex-parte Order issued u/s 263 for the assessment year 2017-18. The Court concluded that the initiation of proceedings was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The assessment order, even if erroneous, was not prejudicial to the revenue, as the discrepancy in long-term capital gains was related to exempt income. The judgment reaffirmed the necessity of both conditions being met for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and emphasized adherence to principles of natural justice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.