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 SC held that an application before the Settlement Commission pending decision requires an order under section 245D(4) of the 1961 Act. Section 245HA applies only if the settlement application is rejected without terms, thereby reviving appellate proceedings. The Revenue's contention that the assessee must forfeit the right to contest the assessment on merits upon such rejection was rejected as misconceived. Given the facts, the ITAT rightly condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the first appeal. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, affirming the continuation of appellate remedy despite the pending settlement application.
The SC held that an application before the Settlement Commission pending decision requires an order under section 245D(4) of the 1961 Act. Section 245HA applies only if the settlement application is rejected without terms, thereby reviving appellate proceedings. The Revenue's contention that the assessee must forfeit the right to contest the assessment on merits upon such rejection was rejected as misconceived. Given the facts, the ITAT rightly condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the first appeal. Consequently, the special leave petition was dismissed, affirming the continuation of appellate remedy despite the pending settlement application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.