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 respondents took an excessively narrow view by refusing relief to the petitioner under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act). The VSV Act aims to resolve disputes pending at various appellate stages on the prescribed date, concerning challenges instituted by the assessee against adverse findings or decisions in the original assessment order. The statute defines "disputed tax liability" and "tax arrears," indicating that the settlement should be confined to the contested part of the assessment. Imposing a liability exceeding the disputed matter would be unjust. Once the Assessing Officer granted carry forward and set off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation, denying the same to the declarant would be improper. The Designated Authority erred by not rectifying the mistake in Form 3, which would deprive the petitioner of asserting the claim. The High Court quashed the impugned order, allowing the writ petition.
The High Court held that the respondents took an excessively narrow view by refusing relief to the petitioner under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (VSV Act). The VSV Act aims to resolve disputes pending at various appellate stages on the prescribed date, concerning challenges instituted by the assessee against adverse findings or decisions in the original assessment order. The statute defines "disputed tax liability" and "tax arrears," indicating that the settlement should be confined to the contested part of the assessment. Imposing a liability exceeding the disputed matter would be unjust. Once the Assessing Officer granted carry forward and set off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation, denying the same to the declarant would be improper. The Designated Authority erred by not rectifying the mistake in Form 3, which would deprive the petitioner of asserting the claim. The High Court quashed the impugned order, allowing the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
