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 allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the criminal prosecution initiated under s.276C(1) against the appellant. The Court held continuation of proceedings amounted to abuse of process because prosecuting authorities ignored binding departmental instructions (including the 24.04.2008 circular and subsequent confirmations) requiring an appellate finding where penalty for concealment exceeded Rs.50,000 and failed to demonstrate wilful evasion or ITAT determination of concealment before lodging complaint. In light of the Settlement Commission proceedings and the authorities' procedural non-compliance, the prosecution was held unlawful and liable to be quashed to vindicate fairness, consistency and accountability.
The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and quashed the criminal prosecution initiated under s.276C(1) against the appellant. The Court held continuation of proceedings amounted to abuse of process because prosecuting authorities ignored binding departmental instructions (including the 24.04.2008 circular and subsequent confirmations) requiring an appellate finding where penalty for concealment exceeded Rs.50,000 and failed to demonstrate wilful evasion or ITAT determination of concealment before lodging complaint. In light of the Settlement Commission proceedings and the authorities' procedural non-compliance, the prosecution was held unlawful and liable to be quashed to vindicate fairness, consistency and accountability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
