Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
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...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 96463 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 Dispute Resolution Panel direction was binding and could not be ignored by the Assessing Officer. Because no departmental appeal had been filed on the earlier years' issue, the addition made under section 40(a)(i) was contrary to the DRP's clear mandate and could not be sustained. The Court therefore exercised writ jurisdiction to quash the demand, including interest, relatable to that addition, despite the availability of an alternate appellate remedy. The remaining transfer pricing adjustment was left open to challenge in the ordinary appeal, with protection against limitation if filed within the time granted.
A High Court held that a Dispute Resolution Panel direction was binding and could not be ignored by the Assessing Officer. Because no departmental appeal had been filed on the earlier years' issue, the addition made under section 40(a)(i) was contrary to the DRP's clear mandate and could not be sustained. The Court therefore exercised writ jurisdiction to quash the demand, including interest, relatable to that addition, despite the availability of an alternate appellate remedy. The remaining transfer pricing adjustment was left open to challenge in the ordinary appeal, with protection against limitation if filed within the time granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
