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" ?
Delay in filing return, petitioner entitled to refund of excess tax deducted at source, revenue rejected application u/s 119(2)(b) citing lack of proof for hardship faced in not filing return on time as per Circular 9/2015. Petitioner residing in Mumbai, return could not be filed by advocate. Held that pedantic approach should be avoided in condonation of delay matters, justice-oriented approach adopted. Petitioner permitted to file belated return by exercising powers u/s 119(2)(b) as entitled to refund. Petition allowed, matter remanded to pass appropriate order u/s 119(2).
Delay in filing return, petitioner entitled to refund of excess tax deducted at source, revenue rejected application u/s 119(2)(b) citing lack of proof for hardship faced in not filing return on time as per Circular 9/2015. Petitioner residing in Mumbai, return could not be filed by advocate. Held that pedantic approach should be avoided in condonation of delay matters, justice-oriented approach adopted. Petitioner permitted to file belated return by exercising powers u/s 119(2)(b) as entitled to refund. Petition allowed, matter remanded to pass appropriate order u/s 119(2).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.