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 set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh disposal of the show cause notice dated 27 December 2024 on its merits and in accordance with law. The court held that an advance ruling authority cannot decline to entertain a renewal application solely because a show cause notice was issued subsequent to the filing of that application; pendency must exist as of the date of filing. The Petitioner's objection invoking a prior binding advance ruling was noted, but substantive adjudication of the December 2024 notice was directed to be undertaken afresh by the Adjudicating Authority.
The HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh disposal of the show cause notice dated 27 December 2024 on its merits and in accordance with law. The court held that an advance ruling authority cannot decline to entertain a renewal application solely because a show cause notice was issued subsequent to the filing of that application; pendency must exist as of the date of filing. The Petitioner's objection invoking a prior binding advance ruling was noted, but substantive adjudication of the December 2024 notice was directed to be undertaken afresh by the Adjudicating Authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
