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 determined that Revenue's contradictory stance regarding BCCI's registration status was legally untenable. While Revenue argued the communication dated 28 December 2009 was merely advisory and non-statutory to challenge appeal maintainability before ITAT, it simultaneously used the same communication to effectively cancel BCCI's registration and deny tax exemptions under Section 11 of IT Act. Court held that Revenue cannot treat the communication as non-statutory to defeat appeal rights while using it to adversely affect assessee's substantive rights. The decision emphasizes that vital matters like registration cancellation or exemption denial must be based on proper statutory orders, not mere advisory communications.
HC determined that Revenue's contradictory stance regarding BCCI's registration status was legally untenable. While Revenue argued the communication dated 28 December 2009 was merely advisory and non-statutory to challenge appeal maintainability before ITAT, it simultaneously used the same communication to effectively cancel BCCI's registration and deny tax exemptions under Section 11 of IT Act. Court held that Revenue cannot treat the communication as non-statutory to defeat appeal rights while using it to adversely affect assessee's substantive rights. The decision emphasizes that vital matters like registration cancellation or exemption denial must be based on proper statutory orders, not mere advisory communications.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.