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 under section 254(2), holding that the Tribunal's order was vitiated by failure to consider material evidence, submissions made at hearing, and relevant jurisprudence; the Tribunal's conclusion denying the Petitioner deduction under section 80-IA was therefore unsustainable. The court found the impugned order affected by a mistake apparent from the record, rejected the Revenue's reliance on contrary authorities as misconceived, set aside the Tribunal's decision, and remitted the appeals to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Directions were given to decide the matters de novo after considering the factual documents and legal contentions placed on record.
The HC allowed the petition under section 254(2), holding that the Tribunal's order was vitiated by failure to consider material evidence, submissions made at hearing, and relevant jurisprudence; the Tribunal's conclusion denying the Petitioner deduction under section 80-IA was therefore unsustainable. The court found the impugned order affected by a mistake apparent from the record, rejected the Revenue's reliance on contrary authorities as misconceived, set aside the Tribunal's decision, and remitted the appeals to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Directions were given to decide the matters de novo after considering the factual documents and legal contentions placed on record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.