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, finding that the accountant's inadvertent error should not prejudice the taxpayer's substantive rights. The court held that under Section 119(2)(b), the revenue authority was duty-bound to exercise discretionary jurisdiction liberally, considering the bona fide nature of the delay. While interest on the refund was denied per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2015, the court directed the respondent to process the income tax return and refund the principal amount. The decision emphasized that technical delays should not result in unjust enrichment of the revenue department, particularly when the taxpayer's substantive entitlement is uncontested.
HC allowed the petition, finding that the accountant's inadvertent error should not prejudice the taxpayer's substantive rights. The court held that under Section 119(2)(b), the revenue authority was duty-bound to exercise discretionary jurisdiction liberally, considering the bona fide nature of the delay. While interest on the refund was denied per CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2015, the court directed the respondent to process the income tax return and refund the principal amount. The decision emphasized that technical delays should not result in unjust enrichment of the revenue department, particularly when the taxpayer's substantive entitlement is uncontested.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.