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 that revisional authority's refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 264 was legally untenable. The authority's reasoning that revision was not maintainable because order was appealable and assessee had not filed appeal was contrary to law. Further, the authority's position that intimation under Section 143(1) was not amenable to revision jurisdiction was incorrect, as established in multiple precedents. The court set aside the impugned order dated February 12, 2021, finding both grounds for declining jurisdiction unsustainable. The revision petition was restored to be decided on merits by the revisional authority in accordance with law.
HC held that revisional authority's refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 264 was legally untenable. The authority's reasoning that revision was not maintainable because order was appealable and assessee had not filed appeal was contrary to law. Further, the authority's position that intimation under Section 143(1) was not amenable to revision jurisdiction was incorrect, as established in multiple precedents. The court set aside the impugned order dated February 12, 2021, finding both grounds for declining jurisdiction unsustainable. The revision petition was restored to be decided on merits by the revisional authority in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.