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" ?
Interplay between limitation under section 144C(13) and section 153 was examined, with the tribunal considering the Madras High Court view that the two provisions are inter dependent and overlapping for matters under section 92CA; the tribunal concluded the timeline for passing final assessment orders must be determined with reference to section 144C read with section 153 and found the final assessment orders in five assessment years were passed beyond that limitation period. Outcome: the impugned final assessment orders were quashed as time barred.
Interplay between limitation under section 144C(13) and section 153 was examined, with the tribunal considering the Madras High Court view that the two provisions are inter dependent and overlapping for matters under section 92CA; the tribunal concluded the timeline for passing final assessment orders must be determined with reference to section 144C read with section 153 and found the final assessment orders in five assessment years were passed beyond that limitation period. Outcome: the impugned final assessment orders were quashed as time barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.