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 service of ITAT order upon assessee's Chartered Accountant does not constitute sufficient service on the assessee under Section 260A appeal provisions. The statutory scheme requires ITAT to ensure direct communication to the assessee within the prescribed 120-day limitation period. Despite Revenue's contention that service on authorized representative suffices, the Court disagreed, emphasizing ITAT's mandatory obligation to serve copies directly on assessees. The Applicant's claim of ignorance regarding the 2016 order until receiving recovery notice in 2024 was accepted, as the CA could not confirm delivery to the assessee. Consequently, the 40-day delay in filing appeals was condoned, allowing determination on merits.
HC held that service of ITAT order upon assessee's Chartered Accountant does not constitute sufficient service on the assessee under Section 260A appeal provisions. The statutory scheme requires ITAT to ensure direct communication to the assessee within the prescribed 120-day limitation period. Despite Revenue's contention that service on authorized representative suffices, the Court disagreed, emphasizing ITAT's mandatory obligation to serve copies directly on assessees. The Applicant's claim of ignorance regarding the 2016 order until receiving recovery notice in 2024 was accepted, as the CA could not confirm delivery to the assessee. Consequently, the 40-day delay in filing appeals was condoned, allowing determination on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.