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" ?
Whether the avoidance application under ss. 43, 44, 66 and 69 read with Reg. 35A(3) was barred by limitation was the dominant issue. The tribunal held it was not time-barred because the computation of limitation stood extended by SC's suo motu COVID-19 directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, and the filing was within the implied period permitted by the prior order granting liberty to apply; further, delay could be condoned without a formal application if sufficient material existed on record, rendering reliance on a contrary CPC-based HC decision inapposite. Consequently, the order refusing to dismiss the application as time-barred and directing hearing on merits was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Whether the avoidance application under ss. 43, 44, 66 and 69 read with Reg. 35A(3) was barred by limitation was the dominant issue. The tribunal held it was not time-barred because the computation of limitation stood extended by SC's suo motu COVID-19 directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, and the filing was within the implied period permitted by the prior order granting liberty to apply; further, delay could be condoned without a formal application if sufficient material existed on record, rendering reliance on a contrary CPC-based HC decision inapposite. Consequently, the order refusing to dismiss the application as time-barred and directing hearing on merits was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
