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 quashed the respondent's order rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a third revised income tax return claiming a refund. The delay arose from inadvertent errors in the Form 3CD audit report regarding the due dates for provident fund contributions, which were the Chartered Accountant's mistakes. The court held that the petitioner was not responsible for these errors and that the delay should have been condoned under section 119(2)(b) to allow the refund claim under section 36(1)(va). The respondent's reliance solely on Circular No. 9/2015 was found improper. The matter was remanded for a fresh de novo consideration, directing the respondent to condone the delay within twelve weeks, thereby preventing disallowance of the provident fund contributions as time-barred under section 36(1)(v).
The HC quashed the respondent's order rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a third revised income tax return claiming a refund. The delay arose from inadvertent errors in the Form 3CD audit report regarding the due dates for provident fund contributions, which were the Chartered Accountant's mistakes. The court held that the petitioner was not responsible for these errors and that the delay should have been condoned under section 119(2)(b) to allow the refund claim under section 36(1)(va). The respondent's reliance solely on Circular No. 9/2015 was found improper. The matter was remanded for a fresh de novo consideration, directing the respondent to condone the delay within twelve weeks, thereby preventing disallowance of the provident fund contributions as time-barred under section 36(1)(v).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
