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 dismissed the stay application and directed the appellant to pre-deposit 20% of the entire disputed demand pending appeal, applying the CBDT OMs; the court held that where demand is contested before CIT(A) ordinarily stay is subject to a 20% deposit unless particularized reasons justify a higher lump sum. The HC observed absence of AO action under s.245 or specific reasons warranting more than 20%, noted the respondent considered the appellant's assessed financial position and found no evidence of hardship, and concluded the respondent's brief reasons demonstrated application of mind. The order dated 05.04.2019 was upheld as not vitiated by mala fides or wilful disobedience.
HC dismissed the stay application and directed the appellant to pre-deposit 20% of the entire disputed demand pending appeal, applying the CBDT OMs; the court held that where demand is contested before CIT(A) ordinarily stay is subject to a 20% deposit unless particularized reasons justify a higher lump sum. The HC observed absence of AO action under s.245 or specific reasons warranting more than 20%, noted the respondent considered the appellant's assessed financial position and found no evidence of hardship, and concluded the respondent's brief reasons demonstrated application of mind. The order dated 05.04.2019 was upheld as not vitiated by mala fides or wilful disobedience.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
