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" ?
Eligibility to avail the SVLDR Scheme for a second show cause notice issued after the Scheme's prescribed cut-off date was the dominant issue. The Court held that mere cross-reference to an earlier notice, or reliance on documents from it, does not render the later notice a continuation of the earlier proceedings; the later notice was an independent demand with separate quantification and adjudication. Since notices issued beyond the Scheme deadline are ineligible, rejection of the Scheme application for the later notice was upheld. However, to avoid denial of statutory remedies due to pendency of the writ, the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal against the adjudication order within the extended time granted. - HC
Eligibility to avail the SVLDR Scheme for a second show cause notice issued after the Scheme's prescribed cut-off date was the dominant issue. The Court held that mere cross-reference to an earlier notice, or reliance on documents from it, does not render the later notice a continuation of the earlier proceedings; the later notice was an independent demand with separate quantification and adjudication. Since notices issued beyond the Scheme deadline are ineligible, rejection of the Scheme application for the later notice was upheld. However, to avoid denial of statutory remedies due to pendency of the writ, the petitioner was permitted to file an appeal against the adjudication order within the extended time granted. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.