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 held that appellant was eligible for benefits under Karasamadhana Scheme, 2021, despite subsequent initiation of suo-motu revision proceedings under Section 64(1) of KVAT Act. Court ruled that Clause 5.7 of the scheme only disqualifies dealers against whom revision proceedings were already initiated before the scheme's notification date. Since no suo-motu revision was pending when the scheme was introduced, and appellant's application was accepted with order passed in their favor, subsequent initiation of revisional proceedings would defeat the scheme's purpose and object. Permitting post-acceptance revision would render the scheme arbitrary and unreasonable. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee-appellant.
HC held that appellant was eligible for benefits under Karasamadhana Scheme, 2021, despite subsequent initiation of suo-motu revision proceedings under Section 64(1) of KVAT Act. Court ruled that Clause 5.7 of the scheme only disqualifies dealers against whom revision proceedings were already initiated before the scheme's notification date. Since no suo-motu revision was pending when the scheme was introduced, and appellant's application was accepted with order passed in their favor, subsequent initiation of revisional proceedings would defeat the scheme's purpose and object. Permitting post-acceptance revision would render the scheme arbitrary and unreasonable. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee-appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.