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" ?
Refund the amount deposited by the applicant pursuant to the directions/ order of the DRT, Delhi - The High court observes that IFCI failed to demonstrate that the amount deposited by the applicant was remitted to the Official Liquidator. Despite repeated opportunities, IFCI did not provide a satisfactory breakdown of the amounts deposited with the Official Liquidator, leading to uncertainty regarding the inclusion of the applicant's funds. - Given the failure of IFCI to account for the applicant's funds and provide satisfactory documentation, the court directs IFCI to refund the amount of Rs. 57.50 Lacs to the applicant, along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of deposit.
Refund the amount deposited by the applicant pursuant to the directions/ order of the DRT, Delhi - The High court observes that IFCI failed to demonstrate that the amount deposited by the applicant was remitted to the Official Liquidator. Despite repeated opportunities, IFCI did not provide a satisfactory breakdown of the amounts deposited with the Official Liquidator, leading to uncertainty regarding the inclusion of the applicant's funds. - Given the failure of IFCI to account for the applicant's funds and provide satisfactory documentation, the court directs IFCI to refund the amount of Rs. 57.50 Lacs to the applicant, along with interest at 18% per annum from the date of deposit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
