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" ?
HC held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lawfully set aside levy of interest and penalty and the assessment order merged into the appeal order, resulting in disposal in favour of the assessee. The High Court found that revisional jurisdiction under s.57(1)(a) could not extend to orders of an officer of coequal rank and that delegated powers cannot contravene the parent Act. The Tribunal's invocation of s.62 to rectify the error was sustained: the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) lacked revisional competence over the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently the Tribunal's order was upheld, the issue decided against the Revenue, and the reference disposed of.
HC held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lawfully set aside levy of interest and penalty and the assessment order merged into the appeal order, resulting in disposal in favour of the assessee. The High Court found that revisional jurisdiction under s.57(1)(a) could not extend to orders of an officer of coequal rank and that delegated powers cannot contravene the parent Act. The Tribunal's invocation of s.62 to rectify the error was sustained: the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) lacked revisional competence over the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently the Tribunal's order was upheld, the issue decided against the Revenue, and the reference disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.