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 HC held that the 3rd respondent's order dated 05.11.2024 adjusting the petitioner's tax refund was unlawful and procedurally defective. The court found the 3rd respondent had issued a notice u/s 245 on 15.10.2024 granting 21 days to reply but effected adjustment before the expiry of that period and while an appeal before the 2nd respondent remained pending, thereby breaching statutory procedure and principles of natural justice. The HC set aside and quashed the impugned adjustment order and related proceedings, rejecting the revenue's contention of procedural regularity. The matter stands remitted to be dealt with in accordance with law.
The HC held that the 3rd respondent's order dated 05.11.2024 adjusting the petitioner's tax refund was unlawful and procedurally defective. The court found the 3rd respondent had issued a notice u/s 245 on 15.10.2024 granting 21 days to reply but effected adjustment before the expiry of that period and while an appeal before the 2nd respondent remained pending, thereby breaching statutory procedure and principles of natural justice. The HC set aside and quashed the impugned adjustment order and related proceedings, rejecting the revenue's contention of procedural regularity. The matter stands remitted to be dealt with in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
