Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 96508 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A High Court held that a beneficial CBDT circular issued under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing prescribed forms must be applied to genuine and bona fide cases, even where the assessment year is not expressly named. The court found that the relevant circular was the one dated 18.11.2024, which addressed condonation of delay, and that omission of AY 2023-24 was not decisive because the circular was meant to remedy genuine hardship. Rejecting a narrow year-specific reading as anomalous and unjust, the court set aside the refusal order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
A High Court held that a beneficial CBDT circular issued under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing prescribed forms must be applied to genuine and bona fide cases, even where the assessment year is not expressly named. The court found that the relevant circular was the one dated 18.11.2024, which addressed condonation of delay, and that omission of AY 2023-24 was not decisive because the circular was meant to remedy genuine hardship. Rejecting a narrow year-specific reading as anomalous and unjust, the court set aside the refusal order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.