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" ?
The HC set aside the Revenue's adjustment of refunds due to the petitioner for AY 2020-21 against outstanding demands for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The Court held that the adjustment was unsustainable as the Revenue failed to issue prior notice under Section 245 of the Act, which is mandatory. While acknowledging that refund adjustments against outstanding demands may constitute coercive measures in certain cases, the Court emphasized that appellate authorities could specify limitations to stay orders. The HC directed the Revenue to pay the determined refund amount to the petitioner with applicable interest within eight weeks.
The HC set aside the Revenue's adjustment of refunds due to the petitioner for AY 2020-21 against outstanding demands for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19. The Court held that the adjustment was unsustainable as the Revenue failed to issue prior notice under Section 245 of the Act, which is mandatory. While acknowledging that refund adjustments against outstanding demands may constitute coercive measures in certain cases, the Court emphasized that appellate authorities could specify limitations to stay orders. The HC directed the Revenue to pay the determined refund amount to the petitioner with applicable interest within eight weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
