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" ?
Non-incorporation of the Document Identification Number required by the Board circulars rendered the appellate order invalid, as earlier decisions had treated DIN compliance as mandatory and failure to include it as fatal to the order's validity. The contention that the requirement applied only to communications and not to adjudicatory or appellate orders was rejected, because later precedent had extended the same consequence to such orders. A subsequent circular relaxing the requirement for email-communicated orders did not assist the respondent, since it came into force after the impugned order and, in any event, the alternative Unique Issue Number was also not used. The appellate order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.
Non-incorporation of the Document Identification Number required by the Board circulars rendered the appellate order invalid, as earlier decisions had treated DIN compliance as mandatory and failure to include it as fatal to the order's validity. The contention that the requirement applied only to communications and not to adjudicatory or appellate orders was rejected, because later precedent had extended the same consequence to such orders. A subsequent circular relaxing the requirement for email-communicated orders did not assist the respondent, since it came into force after the impugned order and, in any event, the alternative Unique Issue Number was also not used. The appellate order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.