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" ?
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 4828 
Join Channel 
