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" ?
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - refusal to issue the Discharge Certificate - The Scheme being a piece of reformative legislation, ‘redemption fine’ that is a penalty in rem must clearly be shown to have been excluded from the meaning of the word ‘penalty’ used in section 129 of the Scheme, before it may be inferred that a Discharge Certificate may be issued only upon payment of the ‘redemption fine’/penalty in rem. In absence of any provision to exclude ‘redemption fine’/ penalty in rem from the benefits of the Discharge Certificate contained in section 129 of the Scheme, no such inference may be drawn, against the plain language and intent of the Scheme. In absence of any express exclusion created by the Scheme, ‘redemption fine’ would always remain a ‘penalty’ covered under the meaning of that word used in section 129 (1) (a) read with section 121 (u) of the Scheme. - HC
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - refusal to issue the Discharge Certificate - The Scheme being a piece of reformative legislation, ‘redemption fine’ that is a penalty in rem must clearly be shown to have been excluded from the meaning of the word ‘penalty’ used in section 129 of the Scheme, before it may be inferred that a Discharge Certificate may be issued only upon payment of the ‘redemption fine’/penalty in rem. In absence of any provision to exclude ‘redemption fine’/ penalty in rem from the benefits of the Discharge Certificate contained in section 129 of the Scheme, no such inference may be drawn, against the plain language and intent of the Scheme. In absence of any express exclusion created by the Scheme, ‘redemption fine’ would always remain a ‘penalty’ covered under the meaning of that word used in section 129 (1) (a) read with section 121 (u) of the Scheme. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
