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 writ challenge to long-pending show cause notices was declined because the petitioners approached the High Court after about eighteen years, showing delay and laches. The Court noted that opportunities and hearing dates had been given after issuance of the notices, but the petitioners did not participate, so the delay in adjudication could not be blamed solely on the department. As factual issues still had to be examined by the competent authority, the Court refused to quash the notices at the writ stage and left all merits open. The petitions were dismissed, with liberty to appear before the authority and raise all available submissions.
A writ challenge to long-pending show cause notices was declined because the petitioners approached the High Court after about eighteen years, showing delay and laches. The Court noted that opportunities and hearing dates had been given after issuance of the notices, but the petitioners did not participate, so the delay in adjudication could not be blamed solely on the department. As factual issues still had to be examined by the competent authority, the Court refused to quash the notices at the writ stage and left all merits open. The petitions were dismissed, with liberty to appear before the authority and raise all available submissions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.