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 upheld the validity of orders passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 22D(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. The court held that Settlement Commission members are appointed as government representatives with expertise and integrity to settle tax disputes, and the government cannot challenge decisions made by its own appointed representatives absent allegations of bias, fraud, or malice. The HC emphasized that courts discover existing law rather than create new rules, and subsequent judicial decisions clarifying legal principles operate retrospectively. Since no bias, fraud, or malice was alleged against the Settlement Commission's order, the government's challenge was rejected and the appeal was allowed.
The HC upheld the validity of orders passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 22D(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. The court held that Settlement Commission members are appointed as government representatives with expertise and integrity to settle tax disputes, and the government cannot challenge decisions made by its own appointed representatives absent allegations of bias, fraud, or malice. The HC emphasized that courts discover existing law rather than create new rules, and subsequent judicial decisions clarifying legal principles operate retrospectively. Since no bias, fraud, or malice was alleged against the Settlement Commission's order, the government's challenge was rejected and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
