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 held that the Central Board of Direct Tax's Compounding Guidelines dated 16 September 2022, which rejected the application for compounding u/s 279(2) on the basis of a time frame, were invalid. Section 279(2) does not prescribe any timelines for filing an application for compounding, and the Guidelines exceeded the statutory provision by imposing a condition not contemplated by the Act. The Court set aside the order rejecting the compounding application and remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) for fresh consideration, bearing in mind the observations made by the Court.
The High Court held that the Central Board of Direct Tax's Compounding Guidelines dated 16 September 2022, which rejected the application for compounding u/s 279(2) on the basis of a time frame, were invalid. Section 279(2) does not prescribe any timelines for filing an application for compounding, and the Guidelines exceeded the statutory provision by imposing a condition not contemplated by the Act. The Court set aside the order rejecting the compounding application and remanded the matter to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) for fresh consideration, bearing in mind the observations made by the Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
