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 held that the petitioner, having deposited over 20% of the disputed tax demand, is entitled to a stay of recovery proceedings related to AY 2016-17. The Court found the respondent's adjustment of the petitioner's refund for AY 2024-25 against the earlier demand arbitrary, especially as rectification and appeal processes remain pending. The HC directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's refund application and rectification petition within four weeks, refunding Rs. 3 crores with interest. Recovery proceedings are to be deferred until the disposal of pending appeals before the CIT (A). The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, upholding the petitioner's entitlement to stay and refund.
The HC held that the petitioner, having deposited over 20% of the disputed tax demand, is entitled to a stay of recovery proceedings related to AY 2016-17. The Court found the respondent's adjustment of the petitioner's refund for AY 2024-25 against the earlier demand arbitrary, especially as rectification and appeal processes remain pending. The HC directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's refund application and rectification petition within four weeks, refunding Rs. 3 crores with interest. Recovery proceedings are to be deferred until the disposal of pending appeals before the CIT (A). The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, upholding the petitioner's entitlement to stay and refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
