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" ?
HC held assessment orders passed in name of amalgamating companies void ab initio, despite participation of amalgamated company (RIL) in proceedings. Revenue authorities had prior knowledge of amalgamation yet issued orders against non-existent entities. Following Maruti Suzuki precedent, court determined that once amalgamation is effective, proceedings must be conducted against amalgamated entity. Mere participation by amalgamated company cannot validate assessment orders issued to defunct amalgamating companies. Assessment order dated March 27, 1997, declared legally void, ruling in assessee's favor. Principle affirmed that post-merger assessments must be pursued against surviving amalgamated entity exclusively.
HC held assessment orders passed in name of amalgamating companies void ab initio, despite participation of amalgamated company (RIL) in proceedings. Revenue authorities had prior knowledge of amalgamation yet issued orders against non-existent entities. Following Maruti Suzuki precedent, court determined that once amalgamation is effective, proceedings must be conducted against amalgamated entity. Mere participation by amalgamated company cannot validate assessment orders issued to defunct amalgamating companies. Assessment order dated March 27, 1997, declared legally void, ruling in assessee's favor. Principle affirmed that post-merger assessments must be pursued against surviving amalgamated entity exclusively.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.