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" ?
HC held that the Assessing Officer was bound by section 144C(13) to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's directions under s.144C(5) were received, and had no discretionary power to extend or deviate from that mandate. The court rejected Revenue's contention that remand cases are exempt from the statutory timeline, treating the provision as mandatory and equally applicable on remand. Because the AO failed to give effect to the DRP directions within the prescribed period, any transfer-pricing addition sought thereafter cannot be sustained beyond the statutory timeline and the AO's action in completing the assessment late is impermissible.
HC held that the Assessing Officer was bound by section 144C(13) to complete the assessment within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's directions under s.144C(5) were received, and had no discretionary power to extend or deviate from that mandate. The court rejected Revenue's contention that remand cases are exempt from the statutory timeline, treating the provision as mandatory and equally applicable on remand. Because the AO failed to give effect to the DRP directions within the prescribed period, any transfer-pricing addition sought thereafter cannot be sustained beyond the statutory timeline and the AO's action in completing the assessment late is impermissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.