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" ?
Lease Agreement - Transfer of Property - Appellant argued that the clause in the lease agreement only applies to voluntary transfers, not to mergers or amalgamations - The Supreme Court interpreted the clause in the lease agreement broadly, finding that it covers both voluntary and involuntary transfers, including mergers. It noted that the clause's language did not exclude involuntary transfers, and thus, the amalgamation fell within its purview. - The Court affirmed that the amalgamation, despite being governed by company law, resulted in a transfer of properties from the transferor to the transferee company. - Thus, the dispute concerning the interpretation of the lease agreement clause in the context of the company amalgamation was resolved in favor of the DDA.
Lease Agreement - Transfer of Property - Appellant argued that the clause in the lease agreement only applies to voluntary transfers, not to mergers or amalgamations - The Supreme Court interpreted the clause in the lease agreement broadly, finding that it covers both voluntary and involuntary transfers, including mergers. It noted that the clause's language did not exclude involuntary transfers, and thus, the amalgamation fell within its purview. - The Court affirmed that the amalgamation, despite being governed by company law, resulted in a transfer of properties from the transferor to the transferee company. - Thus, the dispute concerning the interpretation of the lease agreement clause in the context of the company amalgamation was resolved in favor of the DDA.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.