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" ?
Delay in filing customs appeals beyond the statutory period of 60 days, plus the further condonable 30 days, cannot be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found the explanation for delay factually inadequate because the affidavits lacked specific particulars and dates, and the appellants had not consistently claimed that both partners were outside India. Relying on Singh Enterprises, it held that section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded where the statute fixes the maximum condonable period. The appeals were therefore upheld as time-barred, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to entertain them.
Delay in filing customs appeals beyond the statutory period of 60 days, plus the further condonable 30 days, cannot be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found the explanation for delay factually inadequate because the affidavits lacked specific particulars and dates, and the appellants had not consistently claimed that both partners were outside India. Relying on Singh Enterprises, it held that section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded where the statute fixes the maximum condonable period. The appeals were therefore upheld as time-barred, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to entertain them.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
