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" ?
Clause 10(e) of the CBDT circulars was interpreted as illustrative, not exhaustive, for identifying law enforcement agencies. The High Court held that DGCEI, being an enforcement agency, falls within that expression and could not be excluded merely because it was not named alongside CBI, ED, DRI, SFIO and DGGI. The Tribunal had therefore misread the circulars in rejecting the Revenue's rectification application under section 254(2), and that rejection could not stand. The impugned order was set aside, the rectification matter was restored to the Tribunal, and the issue was remanded for fresh decision after hearing both sides.
Clause 10(e) of the CBDT circulars was interpreted as illustrative, not exhaustive, for identifying law enforcement agencies. The High Court held that DGCEI, being an enforcement agency, falls within that expression and could not be excluded merely because it was not named alongside CBI, ED, DRI, SFIO and DGGI. The Tribunal had therefore misread the circulars in rejecting the Revenue's rectification application under section 254(2), and that rejection could not stand. The impugned order was set aside, the rectification matter was restored to the Tribunal, and the issue was remanded for fresh decision after hearing both sides.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
