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" ?
An appeal withdrawn after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was restored because the earlier dismissal was only on withdrawal and not on merits. The Tribunal's refusal to revive the appeal was set aside, as the dispute remained undecided and substantial payment had already been made under the settlement scheme. Restoration was necessary so the appeal could be heard in accordance with law, and so the assessee could, if advised, pursue settlement again under the prevailing scheme while the appeal remained pending. The appeal was therefore revived for disposal on merits.
An appeal withdrawn after opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was restored because the earlier dismissal was only on withdrawal and not on merits. The Tribunal's refusal to revive the appeal was set aside, as the dispute remained undecided and substantial payment had already been made under the settlement scheme. Restoration was necessary so the appeal could be heard in accordance with law, and so the assessee could, if advised, pursue settlement again under the prevailing scheme while the appeal remained pending. The appeal was therefore revived for disposal on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.