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" ?
ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order dismissing the assessee's appeal without adjudicating merits violates Section 250(6). The appellate order lacks substantive reasoning and fails to address the core issues. While the assessee's non-compliance with notices contributed to the procedural lapse, the CIT(A)'s order is unsustainable. The tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing a comprehensive review of the appeal on merits after providing opportunities to both parties. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, mandating a de novo examination of the underlying tax dispute.
ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s ex parte order dismissing the assessee's appeal without adjudicating merits violates Section 250(6). The appellate order lacks substantive reasoning and fails to address the core issues. While the assessee's non-compliance with notices contributed to the procedural lapse, the CIT(A)'s order is unsustainable. The tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter back to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing a comprehensive review of the appeal on merits after providing opportunities to both parties. The assessee's appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, mandating a de novo examination of the underlying tax dispute.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.