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 a 2262-day delay in filing a statutory appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Applying the liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice, the court held that the tribunal erred in treating the appellant's inaction as "total negligence," particularly given the SC's directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation due to COVID-19 and the impracticality of expecting daily portal monitoring. Since refusal would effectively bar scrutiny of a substantial penalty on merits, the delay was condoned and the question of law was answered in the appellant's favour. - HC
The dominant issue was whether a 2262-day delay in filing a statutory appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Applying the liberal construction of "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice, the court held that the tribunal erred in treating the appellant's inaction as "total negligence," particularly given the SC's directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation due to COVID-19 and the impracticality of expecting daily portal monitoring. Since refusal would effectively bar scrutiny of a substantial penalty on merits, the delay was condoned and the question of law was answered in the appellant's favour. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
