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 High Court ruled on the validity of an order passed u/s 144C(3) read with Section 144B. The petitioner had filed objections to the Draft Assessment Order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Considering the objections filed before the DRP and the observations made in the Open Silicon Research case, the court held that the Assessment Order passed disregarding the objections requires interference. The Assessing Officer (AO) ought to have waited for the DRP's directions. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the order, with a direction to the AO to follow the DRP's directions and proceed accordingly, while the DRP would issue necessary directions considering the petitioner's objections.
The High Court ruled on the validity of an order passed u/s 144C(3) read with Section 144B. The petitioner had filed objections to the Draft Assessment Order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Considering the objections filed before the DRP and the observations made in the Open Silicon Research case, the court held that the Assessment Order passed disregarding the objections requires interference. The Assessing Officer (AO) ought to have waited for the DRP's directions. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the order, with a direction to the AO to follow the DRP's directions and proceed accordingly, while the DRP would issue necessary directions considering the petitioner's objections.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
