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" ?
HC held that the assessee's rectification application under s. 254(2) was within limitation, as the limitation period commences from the date of service of the order sought to be rectified, read harmoniously with the relevant Tribunal Rules requiring copies of the order to accompany such application. Since the order was served only on 24 March 2025 and the miscellaneous application was filed within six months thereof, ITAT erred in treating it as time-barred and in relying on the Leena Power Tech decision, which was distinguishable. The writ petition was disposed of by clarifying that all grounds on merits remain open to be urged in the pending appeal against the original order.
HC held that the assessee's rectification application under s. 254(2) was within limitation, as the limitation period commences from the date of service of the order sought to be rectified, read harmoniously with the relevant Tribunal Rules requiring copies of the order to accompany such application. Since the order was served only on 24 March 2025 and the miscellaneous application was filed within six months thereof, ITAT erred in treating it as time-barred and in relying on the Leena Power Tech decision, which was distinguishable. The writ petition was disposed of by clarifying that all grounds on merits remain open to be urged in the pending appeal against the original order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.