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" ?
Revisional powers under Section 264 were held to be broad and aimed at preventing miscarriage of justice and granting relief to an assessee even where the assessee committed mistakes in the original return; consequently the revision application should have been considered and the impugned order under Section 264 was set aside. The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd., finding it inapplicable because that case did not address revisional powers under Section 264 but concerned a post filing deduction without a revised return.
Revisional powers under Section 264 were held to be broad and aimed at preventing miscarriage of justice and granting relief to an assessee even where the assessee committed mistakes in the original return; consequently the revision application should have been considered and the impugned order under Section 264 was set aside. The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Goetze (India) Ltd., finding it inapplicable because that case did not address revisional powers under Section 264 but concerned a post filing deduction without a revised return.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.