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" ?
The Supreme Court examined the validity of an Agreement to Sell for land, where the plaintiff entered into the agreement with a Power of Attorney holder for the defendants. The Court found that the agreement lacked signatures of all co-owners, and the power of attorney was not proven during trial. The plaintiff failed to appear as a witness, relying on the Power of Attorney holder instead. The Court noted the delay in filing the suit, which was done on the last day of the extended limitation period. As the plaintiff only engaged with one co-owner and delayed legal action despite knowledge of subsequent transactions, specific performance relief was denied due to the delay and failure to meet legal requirements.
The Supreme Court examined the validity of an Agreement to Sell for land, where the plaintiff entered into the agreement with a Power of Attorney holder for the defendants. The Court found that the agreement lacked signatures of all co-owners, and the power of attorney was not proven during trial. The plaintiff failed to appear as a witness, relying on the Power of Attorney holder instead. The Court noted the delay in filing the suit, which was done on the last day of the extended limitation period. As the plaintiff only engaged with one co-owner and delayed legal action despite knowledge of subsequent transactions, specific performance relief was denied due to the delay and failure to meet legal requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
