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" ?
The dominant issue was whether, after DRP directions, the AO could complete proceedings to give effect to those directions beyond the mandatory time limit under s.144C(13), on the plea that remand proceedings are exempt from the statutory timeline. The court held that s.144C(13) imposes a binding and strict time frame, and where the statute prescribes a manner and timeline, it must be complied with; permitting completion beyond limitation would negate the mandatory provision. Consequently, the pending proceedings to implement the transfer pricing addition were held time-barred, the adjustment was treated as non est, and the total income for AY 2012-13 was directed to be recomputed excluding it - HC
The dominant issue was whether, after DRP directions, the AO could complete proceedings to give effect to those directions beyond the mandatory time limit under s.144C(13), on the plea that remand proceedings are exempt from the statutory timeline. The court held that s.144C(13) imposes a binding and strict time frame, and where the statute prescribes a manner and timeline, it must be complied with; permitting completion beyond limitation would negate the mandatory provision. Consequently, the pending proceedings to implement the transfer pricing addition were held time-barred, the adjustment was treated as non est, and the total income for AY 2012-13 was directed to be recomputed excluding it - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.