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" ?
Interest on the penalty amount - for the period when the initial order was stayed - The High Court observed that the regulations explicitly required the issuance of a demand notice after the penalty order's stipulated payment period had passed. The court found that this procedural step was not merely directory but mandatory, thus affecting the legality of the interest imposed without following due process. Additionally, the court noted analogous principles from tax law, where the issuance of a demand notice is a precondition for the recovery of sums due under the law. Drawing from these principles, the court underscored that proper legal procedures cannot be bypassed under the guise of procedural simplicity or regulatory power. The impugned order was set aside.
Interest on the penalty amount - for the period when the initial order was stayed - The High Court observed that the regulations explicitly required the issuance of a demand notice after the penalty order's stipulated payment period had passed. The court found that this procedural step was not merely directory but mandatory, thus affecting the legality of the interest imposed without following due process. Additionally, the court noted analogous principles from tax law, where the issuance of a demand notice is a precondition for the recovery of sums due under the law. Drawing from these principles, the court underscored that proper legal procedures cannot be bypassed under the guise of procedural simplicity or regulatory power. The impugned order was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.