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 condoned a 450-day delay in filing an appeal, prioritizing substantial justice over technical procedural constraints. The tribunal determined that the delay was not excessive, referencing precedent cases where much longer delays were excused. The decision emphasized that technical limitations should not prevent judicial review when a reasonable cause exists. The tribunal admitted the appeal for adjudication and granted the assessee an opportunity to represent their case before the Assessing Officer, while simultaneously imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 as a penalty for procedural laxity. The ruling underscores the principle that justice should prevail over strict procedural adherence, particularly when no deliberate misconduct is evident.
ITAT condoned a 450-day delay in filing an appeal, prioritizing substantial justice over technical procedural constraints. The tribunal determined that the delay was not excessive, referencing precedent cases where much longer delays were excused. The decision emphasized that technical limitations should not prevent judicial review when a reasonable cause exists. The tribunal admitted the appeal for adjudication and granted the assessee an opportunity to represent their case before the Assessing Officer, while simultaneously imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000 as a penalty for procedural laxity. The ruling underscores the principle that justice should prevail over strict procedural adherence, particularly when no deliberate misconduct is evident.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.