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 allowed the petition, holding that the respondent's adjustment of refund for AY 2014-15 against the demand for AY 2016-17 was unjustified. The court noted that the petitioner had already paid 20% of the demand for AY 2016-17, and an appeal was pending. The respondent's action was contrary to CBDT Circular and prior judicial precedent. The court directed the respondent to refund the erroneously adjusted amount, emphasizing that the balance demand should be stayed pending appeal resolution.
HC allowed the petition, holding that the respondent's adjustment of refund for AY 2014-15 against the demand for AY 2016-17 was unjustified. The court noted that the petitioner had already paid 20% of the demand for AY 2016-17, and an appeal was pending. The respondent's action was contrary to CBDT Circular and prior judicial precedent. The court directed the respondent to refund the erroneously adjusted amount, emphasizing that the balance demand should be stayed pending appeal resolution.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
