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" ?
Constitutional Validity of amendment to the Industrial Policy Resolution 2007 (IPR 2007) - Opposite Parties do not deny that Petitioner No.1 fulfils the triple test under the IPR 2007 and has made an eligible fixed capital investment of ₹ 183.75 crores. There can be no doubt that there is a vested accrued and crystallized right in favour of Petitioner No.1 in terms of paragraph 18.4 of IPR 2007 to avail the incentives. That is why the sanction order dated 6th June 2017 was issued in the first place. No valid justification has been provided by the Opposite Parties for retrospectively cancelling the said sanction order and that too well over a year after it was issued. - HC
Constitutional Validity of amendment to the Industrial Policy Resolution 2007 (IPR 2007) - Opposite Parties do not deny that Petitioner No.1 fulfils the triple test under the IPR 2007 and has made an eligible fixed capital investment of ₹ 183.75 crores. There can be no doubt that there is a vested accrued and crystallized right in favour of Petitioner No.1 in terms of paragraph 18.4 of IPR 2007 to avail the incentives. That is why the sanction order dated 6th June 2017 was issued in the first place. No valid justification has been provided by the Opposite Parties for retrospectively cancelling the said sanction order and that too well over a year after it was issued. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
