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 allowed the petition, holding that the ITAT exceeded jurisdiction by invoking s.254(2) to rectify its earlier order on the basis of a subsequent SC decision. The Court held s.254(2) permits correction only of a mistake apparent from the record as it stood when the original order was rendered, and a later judicial pronouncement does not constitute such a mistake. Accordingly, the HC quashed the ITAT order passed under s.254(2) and restored the original position, finding no error apparent on the record when the Tribunal's initial order was delivered; the AO's intimation under s.143(1) and the disallowance under s.36(1)(va) remain unaffected.
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the ITAT exceeded jurisdiction by invoking s.254(2) to rectify its earlier order on the basis of a subsequent SC decision. The Court held s.254(2) permits correction only of a mistake apparent from the record as it stood when the original order was rendered, and a later judicial pronouncement does not constitute such a mistake. Accordingly, the HC quashed the ITAT order passed under s.254(2) and restored the original position, finding no error apparent on the record when the Tribunal's initial order was delivered; the AO's intimation under s.143(1) and the disallowance under s.36(1)(va) remain unaffected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.