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" ?
Once an application under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowed and the assessee was treated as not in default, the consequential demand for the earlier assessment year stood stayed, and the revenue lacked authority to adjust refunds of a later assessment year against that stayed demand. As the assessee had already deposited more than 20% of the disputed tax to secure stay, the adjustment made from the refundable amount of the subsequent assessment year was held impermissible. The revenue was directed to refund the amount adjusted pursuant to the intimation, excluding the amount deposited for stay, within the stipulated time. - HC
Once an application under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was allowed and the assessee was treated as not in default, the consequential demand for the earlier assessment year stood stayed, and the revenue lacked authority to adjust refunds of a later assessment year against that stayed demand. As the assessee had already deposited more than 20% of the disputed tax to secure stay, the adjustment made from the refundable amount of the subsequent assessment year was held impermissible. The revenue was directed to refund the amount adjusted pursuant to the intimation, excluding the amount deposited for stay, within the stipulated time. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.