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 HC quashed the impugned hearing notice dated 18.09.2024 issued by respondent no. 5. Reinitiation of adjudication proceedings after a gap of nine years is time-barred u/s 73(4B) of the Finance Act. The delay in not concluding the hearing qua the impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2015 within the stipulated time period is unreasonable. The pendency of an appeal in another case on an identical issue before the CESTAT cannot justify keeping the present proceedings in abeyance. The HC held that Section 73(4B) requires proceedings to be concluded within six months/one year, and extending the same to nine years in the given facts is unreasonable. The petition is disposed of.
The HC quashed the impugned hearing notice dated 18.09.2024 issued by respondent no. 5. Reinitiation of adjudication proceedings after a gap of nine years is time-barred u/s 73(4B) of the Finance Act. The delay in not concluding the hearing qua the impugned show cause notice dated 21.04.2015 within the stipulated time period is unreasonable. The pendency of an appeal in another case on an identical issue before the CESTAT cannot justify keeping the present proceedings in abeyance. The HC held that Section 73(4B) requires proceedings to be concluded within six months/one year, and extending the same to nine years in the given facts is unreasonable. The petition is disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
