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 and quashed the order under section 127(2) effecting centralization of the petitioner-company's PAN to the Central Charge, Bengaluru. The court held the respondent failed to demonstrate necessity or satisfy statutory criteria for transfer: the impugned order relied only on searches of a director and related persons, contained no material linking the petitioner-company to the searched transactions, and did not address the petitioner's objections. The departmental circular was inapplicable because no notices under sections 143(2), 142(1) or 153C were issued by the jurisdictional AO. Assessment records likewise showed no incriminating transactions with the petitioner; jurisdiction therefore remains with Ahmedabad.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the order under section 127(2) effecting centralization of the petitioner-company's PAN to the Central Charge, Bengaluru. The court held the respondent failed to demonstrate necessity or satisfy statutory criteria for transfer: the impugned order relied only on searches of a director and related persons, contained no material linking the petitioner-company to the searched transactions, and did not address the petitioner's objections. The departmental circular was inapplicable because no notices under sections 143(2), 142(1) or 153C were issued by the jurisdictional AO. Assessment records likewise showed no incriminating transactions with the petitioner; jurisdiction therefore remains with Ahmedabad.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.