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" ?
Challenge concerns intimation under Rule 142(1A) and Rule 142(2A) regarding liability for sale of mineral rough stone and gravel. The HC found the writ petition not maintainable because the petitioner filed a representation and participated in the proceedings; consequence: petition dismissed. Separately, the court required that any coercive action be preceded by consideration of the petitioners representation, an opportunity of hearing, and issuance of a reasoned order; consequence: respondent directed to consider the reply dated 12.12.2025 on merits, afford hearing, and pass a reasoned order before taking coercive steps.
Challenge concerns intimation under Rule 142(1A) and Rule 142(2A) regarding liability for sale of mineral rough stone and gravel. The HC found the writ petition not maintainable because the petitioner filed a representation and participated in the proceedings; consequence: petition dismissed. Separately, the court required that any coercive action be preceded by consideration of the petitioners representation, an opportunity of hearing, and issuance of a reasoned order; consequence: respondent directed to consider the reply dated 12.12.2025 on merits, afford hearing, and pass a reasoned order before taking coercive steps.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.