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" ?
The Appellate Tribunal considered the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) due to late filing of Form 67. The return of income for AY 2021-22 was filed on 13.10.2021, with Form 67 submitted on 25.01.2022 and a rectified return on 04.09.2022. The Tribunal held that Form 67 filing is procedural, not mandatory, and non-compliance does not affect the substantive right to claim. Therefore, the grounds raised by the appellant were allowed.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the denial of Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) due to late filing of Form 67. The return of income for AY 2021-22 was filed on 13.10.2021, with Form 67 submitted on 25.01.2022 and a rectified return on 04.09.2022. The Tribunal held that Form 67 filing is procedural, not mandatory, and non-compliance does not affect the substantive right to claim. Therefore, the grounds raised by the appellant were allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.