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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The High Court declined to issue general directions to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Gujarat regarding the uniform procedure for deduction of TDS in MACP compensation cases. The petitioner had deducted TDS and obtained a certificate from the Income Tax Department, but the Court's previous decision held that such deduction may be contrary to law. However, the Court observed that at the relevant time when the petitioner deducted TDS u/s 194A(3) of the Income Tax Act, the Court's decision was not available. While the Tribunals are bound by the Court's decision, the Court cannot issue blanket directions as each case's facts differ. The petitioner has the liberty to challenge individual orders contrary to the Court's decision. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court declined to issue general directions to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Gujarat regarding the uniform procedure for deduction of TDS in MACP compensation cases. The petitioner had deducted TDS and obtained a certificate from the Income Tax Department, but the Court's previous decision held that such deduction may be contrary to law. However, the Court observed that at the relevant time when the petitioner deducted TDS u/s 194A(3) of the Income Tax Act, the Court's decision was not available. While the Tribunals are bound by the Court's decision, the Court cannot issue blanket directions as each case's facts differ. The petitioner has the liberty to challenge individual orders contrary to the Court's decision. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
