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 ITAT exceeded its limited rectification jurisdiction under s.254(2) by effectively reviewing and re-adjudicating the appeal on merits. The Tribunal's rectification order dated 26.03.2013, which recalled its earlier order, reassessed the profit rate and revised the estimated income to 50% of the original assessment, was held to be perverse, illegal and beyond the scope of s.254(2). HC reiterated that s.254(2) permits only correction of mistakes apparent on the face of the record and is not an appeal in disguise. Consequently, the rectification order was set aside and the earlier ITAT order dated 21.09.2011, fixing profit at 5%, was restored.
HC held that ITAT exceeded its limited rectification jurisdiction under s.254(2) by effectively reviewing and re-adjudicating the appeal on merits. The Tribunal's rectification order dated 26.03.2013, which recalled its earlier order, reassessed the profit rate and revised the estimated income to 50% of the original assessment, was held to be perverse, illegal and beyond the scope of s.254(2). HC reiterated that s.254(2) permits only correction of mistakes apparent on the face of the record and is not an appeal in disguise. Consequently, the rectification order was set aside and the earlier ITAT order dated 21.09.2011, fixing profit at 5%, was restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.