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 held that the Tribunal erred in treating the ITR filed under Section 139(1) for AY 2002-2003 as "non-est." The Court found that the delay in filing the return was attributable to the department, which only supplied photocopies of seized materials on 05.07.2004, nearly two years after the search conducted on 04.09.2002. The Tribunal failed to examine the entire circumstances and improperly relied on the "non-est" finding, resulting in double taxation of the appellant through both regular and block assessment proceedings. The HC ruled that the financial consequences of the search, delayed release of materials, and subsequent return filing should be considered on their merits rather than based on the previous "non-est" observation. Appeal allowed.
The HC held that the Tribunal erred in treating the ITR filed under Section 139(1) for AY 2002-2003 as "non-est." The Court found that the delay in filing the return was attributable to the department, which only supplied photocopies of seized materials on 05.07.2004, nearly two years after the search conducted on 04.09.2002. The Tribunal failed to examine the entire circumstances and improperly relied on the "non-est" finding, resulting in double taxation of the appellant through both regular and block assessment proceedings. The HC ruled that the financial consequences of the search, delayed release of materials, and subsequent return filing should be considered on their merits rather than based on the previous "non-est" observation. Appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
