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 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits concerning the correctness of the s.154 rectification order. The Tribunal's treatment of the challenge as confined to an order condoning delay under s.119(2)(b) was held to be factually erroneous because the appellant in fact contested the substantive s.154 order, which neither the Appellate Authority nor the Tribunal had examined. Leaving the appellant remediless against the s.154 order was impermissible. Consequently the HC directed that the Appellate Authority determine the correctness of the rectification under s.154 on its merits, and the appeal was allowed.
HC allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits concerning the correctness of the s.154 rectification order. The Tribunal's treatment of the challenge as confined to an order condoning delay under s.119(2)(b) was held to be factually erroneous because the appellant in fact contested the substantive s.154 order, which neither the Appellate Authority nor the Tribunal had examined. Leaving the appellant remediless against the s.154 order was impermissible. Consequently the HC directed that the Appellate Authority determine the correctness of the rectification under s.154 on its merits, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.