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 the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable and affirmed that the impugned Tribunal judgment correctly entertained the second appeal under Section 55(2). The court found the First Appellate Authority erred in exercising discretion by attempting to bifurcate or separate summary rejection from the order fixing part payment; the order of summary rejection could not be treated independently of the part-payment direction. Accordingly, the respondent-assessee was not precluded from challenging the First Appellate Authority's part-payment order as incidental to final disposal of the appeal. The HC disposed of the reference and upheld the Tribunal's conclusion on maintainability.
The HC held the appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable and affirmed that the impugned Tribunal judgment correctly entertained the second appeal under Section 55(2). The court found the First Appellate Authority erred in exercising discretion by attempting to bifurcate or separate summary rejection from the order fixing part payment; the order of summary rejection could not be treated independently of the part-payment direction. Accordingly, the respondent-assessee was not precluded from challenging the First Appellate Authority's part-payment order as incidental to final disposal of the appeal. The HC disposed of the reference and upheld the Tribunal's conclusion on maintainability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.