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 invoking extended limitation period under First Proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act 1994 was unjustified. Following P&B Pharmaceuticals and L&T precedents, court held that when relevant facts were previously disclosed to authorities through earlier notices, allegations of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression are unsustainable. Mere statutory language reproduction cannot justify extended limitation without substantive proof of willful suppression. Since assessee's position was known from prior proceedings and no new material evidenced deliberate concealment, the show cause notice was quashed for failing to establish grounds for extending limitation period under Section 73(1).
HC determined that invoking extended limitation period under First Proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act 1994 was unjustified. Following P&B Pharmaceuticals and L&T precedents, court held that when relevant facts were previously disclosed to authorities through earlier notices, allegations of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression are unsustainable. Mere statutory language reproduction cannot justify extended limitation without substantive proof of willful suppression. Since assessee's position was known from prior proceedings and no new material evidenced deliberate concealment, the show cause notice was quashed for failing to establish grounds for extending limitation period under Section 73(1).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.