Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
The High Court partly allowed the challenge to the assessment order passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order for violating principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. It remitted the case to the respondents to pass a fresh order, subject to conditions: the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax of Rs. 31,56,386/- within six weeks, and file a detailed reply to the quashed Assessment Order, treated as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 11.02.2021, within thirty days. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court partly allowed the challenge to the assessment order passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The Court quashed the impugned Assessment Order for violating principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. It remitted the case to the respondents to pass a fresh order, subject to conditions: the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed tax of Rs. 31,56,386/- within six weeks, and file a detailed reply to the quashed Assessment Order, treated as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 11.02.2021, within thirty days. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.