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" ?
Revision jurisdiction was contested where revenue sought to revise an assessment by treating purchases as bogus. Tribunal found the assessing officer had issued statutory notices, conducted inquiries including notices to suppliers, and taken a plausible view after considering submissions; therefore the revisional officer could not substitute that view under the power to correct orders deemed "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." Clauses in Explanation 2 relied on by the revisional officer were held unsupported by facts or law, the revisional order was set aside, and the appeal decided against the revenue.
Revision jurisdiction was contested where revenue sought to revise an assessment by treating purchases as bogus. Tribunal found the assessing officer had issued statutory notices, conducted inquiries including notices to suppliers, and taken a plausible view after considering submissions; therefore the revisional officer could not substitute that view under the power to correct orders deemed "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." Clauses in Explanation 2 relied on by the revisional officer were held unsupported by facts or law, the revisional order was set aside, and the appeal decided against the revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.