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 dismissal of the appellant's writ petition, affirming that a compounding application cannot be entertained after the adjudicating authority has passed its order. Compounding requires a prior voluntary admission of contravention, which becomes redundant once guilt is adjudicated. The appellant's second compounding application, filed post-adjudication and lacking mandatory disclosure of the adjudicating authority, was rightly rejected. The Court emphasized that allowing compounding after final adjudication would undermine the statutory scheme designed to ensure timely penalty recovery under the Act. The appellant's contention regarding uncertainty about the proper authority before adjudication was dismissed as unfounded. Consequently, the appeal failed and was dismissed, confirming that compounding is only permissible prior to the conclusion of the adjudication process.
The HC upheld the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition, affirming that a compounding application cannot be entertained after the adjudicating authority has passed its order. Compounding requires a prior voluntary admission of contravention, which becomes redundant once guilt is adjudicated. The appellant's second compounding application, filed post-adjudication and lacking mandatory disclosure of the adjudicating authority, was rightly rejected. The Court emphasized that allowing compounding after final adjudication would undermine the statutory scheme designed to ensure timely penalty recovery under the Act. The appellant's contention regarding uncertainty about the proper authority before adjudication was dismissed as unfounded. Consequently, the appeal failed and was dismissed, confirming that compounding is only permissible prior to the conclusion of the adjudication process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.