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" ?
SAFEMA - Service of primary notice - illegally acquired properties - relatives of the convict - Competent authority claims that the subject property (to be forfeited) is that of the convict and ostensibly held by the relatives of the convict (respondents herein) - in the present case, the properties in question and subject matter of notice under Section 6 are in the name of and held by the two respondents. No entitlement or right has been claimed in these properties by the heirs of the deceased convict. If the properties were in the name of the deceased detenu or convict, then different considerations may have applied. In the context of the present case as the convict had expired before the issuance of notice under Section 6 on 19th January 1994, therefore, the need and requirement to serve notice on him would not arise. - SC
SAFEMA - Service of primary notice - illegally acquired properties - relatives of the convict - Competent authority claims that the subject property (to be forfeited) is that of the convict and ostensibly held by the relatives of the convict (respondents herein) - in the present case, the properties in question and subject matter of notice under Section 6 are in the name of and held by the two respondents. No entitlement or right has been claimed in these properties by the heirs of the deceased convict. If the properties were in the name of the deceased detenu or convict, then different considerations may have applied. In the context of the present case as the convict had expired before the issuance of notice under Section 6 on 19th January 1994, therefore, the need and requirement to serve notice on him would not arise. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.