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" ?
Delay in deposit of TDS led to a complaint against the company and its directors for an offense u/ss 276B and 278B. However, the TDS was deposited with interest u/s 201(1A). No notice was issued to treat any director as a 'Principal Officer' u/s 201(3), nor was any order passed deeming them 'assessee in default'. For the relevant assessment year, the company was held not to be an 'assessee in default'. No penalty was imposed on the company or directors u/s 221 for failure to pay tax. The directors' roles regarding consent, connivance, or negligence u/s 278B(2) were not established. Prosecuting the directors would amount to abuse of process when the revenue chose not to invoke Section 221 against the company or principal officer. Relying on K.C. Builders case, the petition was allowed.
Delay in deposit of TDS led to a complaint against the company and its directors for an offense u/ss 276B and 278B. However, the TDS was deposited with interest u/s 201(1A). No notice was issued to treat any director as a 'Principal Officer' u/s 201(3), nor was any order passed deeming them 'assessee in default'. For the relevant assessment year, the company was held not to be an 'assessee in default'. No penalty was imposed on the company or directors u/s 221 for failure to pay tax. The directors' roles regarding consent, connivance, or negligence u/s 278B(2) were not established. Prosecuting the directors would amount to abuse of process when the revenue chose not to invoke Section 221 against the company or principal officer. Relying on K.C. Builders case, the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
