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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 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 that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and the consequential order were invalid because the petitioner was not afforded the statutory time to file a reply and was not heard prior to adjudication, thereby breaching the audi alteram partem principle and the concomitant rule against bias. The court found the statutory mandate of Section 148A(b) was not complied with, rendering the proceedings procedurally vitiated. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(b) and the notice issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with statutory timelines and with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
The HC held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) and the consequential order were invalid because the petitioner was not afforded the statutory time to file a reply and was not heard prior to adjudication, thereby breaching the audi alteram partem principle and the concomitant rule against bias. The court found the statutory mandate of Section 148A(b) was not complied with, rendering the proceedings procedurally vitiated. Consequently, the impugned order passed under Section 148A(b) and the notice issued under Section 148 were quashed and set aside, and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with statutory timelines and with an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.