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" ?
Seeking release/return of gold bangle- Issuance of SCN after 3 months of seizure - The High Court of Meghalaya heard a case regarding the seizure of a gold bangle under the Customs Act. The petitioner sought the return of the seized item due to a delay in receiving the show cause notice, which violated the statutory provisions. Despite attempts to justify the delay, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the notice period and the need for compliance with legal provisions. The court's decision highlighted the independence of Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act and their respective implications.
Seeking release/return of gold bangle- Issuance of SCN after 3 months of seizure - The High Court of Meghalaya heard a case regarding the seizure of a gold bangle under the Customs Act. The petitioner sought the return of the seized item due to a delay in receiving the show cause notice, which violated the statutory provisions. Despite attempts to justify the delay, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the notice period and the need for compliance with legal provisions. The court's decision highlighted the independence of Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act and their respective implications.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.