Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC ruled that time limits under Section 144C(13) for completing assessments following DRP directions are mandatory, not directory. The AO must pass orders within one month from the end of the month in which DRP directions are received. This limitation period cannot be counted from when the Transfer Pricing Officer implements DRP directions. The assessment order dated February 27, 2015, was held time-barred as it exceeded statutory limits. The court emphasized that limitation laws provide certainty and finality to tax proceedings, preventing indefinite litigation exposure. Following precedent in Vodafone Idea Limited, the court affirmed the mandatory nature of Section 144C(13) timelines and ruled in the assessee's favor, stressing strict adherence to prescribed time limits.
HC ruled that time limits under Section 144C(13) for completing assessments following DRP directions are mandatory, not directory. The AO must pass orders within one month from the end of the month in which DRP directions are received. This limitation period cannot be counted from when the Transfer Pricing Officer implements DRP directions. The assessment order dated February 27, 2015, was held time-barred as it exceeded statutory limits. The court emphasized that limitation laws provide certainty and finality to tax proceedings, preventing indefinite litigation exposure. Following precedent in Vodafone Idea Limited, the court affirmed the mandatory nature of Section 144C(13) timelines and ruled in the assessee's favor, stressing strict adherence to prescribed time limits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.