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 ITAT set aside the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A)/NFAC for non-compliance with section 249(4) regarding deposit of demand before filing the appeal. The appellant contended that a return of income was filed and the entire tax liability was satisfied through TDS. The tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the appellant's submission that the return was filed under a PAN allotted in the status of a firm, despite the appellant being a company, and did not provide an opportunity to explain this. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication with directions to verify the appellant's claims and admit the appeal if the conditions under section 249(4) are met.
The ITAT set aside the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A)/NFAC for non-compliance with section 249(4) regarding deposit of demand before filing the appeal. The appellant contended that a return of income was filed and the entire tax liability was satisfied through TDS. The tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the appellant's submission that the return was filed under a PAN allotted in the status of a firm, despite the appellant being a company, and did not provide an opportunity to explain this. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication with directions to verify the appellant's claims and admit the appeal if the conditions under section 249(4) are met.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
