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" ?
An assessee-trust denied exemption under s.11 sought revision under s.264 against an order appealable under s.246A. The revisional authority could not refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because an appellate remedy existed, since the statute does not mandate exhaustion of appeal where no appeal is filed; accordingly, rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Further, s.264 powers are wide and intended to prevent miscarriage of justice, enabling relief even where the assessee's own mistake in the return caused omission of a legitimate claim; Goetze (India) Ltd. was held inapplicable. The impugned order rejecting the s.264 application for AY 2016-17 was quashed and set aside. - HC
An assessee-trust denied exemption under s.11 sought revision under s.264 against an order appealable under s.246A. The revisional authority could not refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because an appellate remedy existed, since the statute does not mandate exhaustion of appeal where no appeal is filed; accordingly, rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Further, s.264 powers are wide and intended to prevent miscarriage of justice, enabling relief even where the assessee's own mistake in the return caused omission of a legitimate claim; Goetze (India) Ltd. was held inapplicable. The impugned order rejecting the s.264 application for AY 2016-17 was quashed and set aside. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.