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 examined the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to process the refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) and the direction to transfer the claim to the jurisdictional Commissioner, Airport. Regarding the jurisdiction, the Court held that the Commissionerates of Seaport and Airport are clearly demarcated, and their charge is restricted to matters within their competence only. There can be no assumption of jurisdiction by officers of one Commissionerate over matters falling within the jurisdiction of the other. Concerning the transfer of the refund claim, the Court ruled that a superior authority can direct the transfer of an appeal from one authority to another based on competence. Since the matter related to a refund from the Airport Commissioner, the matter was rightly directed to be transferred to the Commissionerate Airport. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court examined the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to process the refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD) and the direction to transfer the claim to the jurisdictional Commissioner, Airport. Regarding the jurisdiction, the Court held that the Commissionerates of Seaport and Airport are clearly demarcated, and their charge is restricted to matters within their competence only. There can be no assumption of jurisdiction by officers of one Commissionerate over matters falling within the jurisdiction of the other. Concerning the transfer of the refund claim, the Court ruled that a superior authority can direct the transfer of an appeal from one authority to another based on competence. Since the matter related to a refund from the Airport Commissioner, the matter was rightly directed to be transferred to the Commissionerate Airport. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
