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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Article 226(2) permits writ jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arises within a court's territory, but its discretionary operation requires consideration of forum conveniens and the principal, substantial nexus. Issuance of an investigation order from Delhi and an affidavit filed by an SFIO officer there did not create a sufficient nexus with Delhi. Mumbai was the appropriate forum because the companies' registered offices and records, the relevant Registrar of Companies, insolvency proceedings, the competent Special Court, and related investigation proceedings were situated there. The writ petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, without examining the investigation's merits.
Article 226(2) permits writ jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arises within a court's territory, but its discretionary operation requires consideration of forum conveniens and the principal, substantial nexus. Issuance of an investigation order from Delhi and an affidavit filed by an SFIO officer there did not create a sufficient nexus with Delhi. Mumbai was the appropriate forum because the companies' registered offices and records, the relevant Registrar of Companies, insolvency proceedings, the competent Special Court, and related investigation proceedings were situated there. The writ petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction, without examining the investigation's merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.