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 Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the denial of refund of excess tax paid by contractors under the Haryana Alternative Tax Compliance Scheme for Contractors, 2016. The court examined the Constitutional Validity of Clause 4(2) of the scheme and found that it created unjust enrichment in favor of the Revenue, disadvantaging contractors who had been regularly paying taxes. Referring to CORPORATION BANK VERSUS SARASWATI ABHARANSALA, the court emphasized that excess tax must be refunded unless it involves unjust enrichment. The court quashed the orders denying refund, ruling in favor of the petitioners and directing payment of refund with interest within four weeks, with additional interest at 9% if delayed. Petition allowed.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed the denial of refund of excess tax paid by contractors under the Haryana Alternative Tax Compliance Scheme for Contractors, 2016. The court examined the Constitutional Validity of Clause 4(2) of the scheme and found that it created unjust enrichment in favor of the Revenue, disadvantaging contractors who had been regularly paying taxes. Referring to CORPORATION BANK VERSUS SARASWATI ABHARANSALA, the court emphasized that excess tax must be refunded unless it involves unjust enrichment. The court quashed the orders denying refund, ruling in favor of the petitioners and directing payment of refund with interest within four weeks, with additional interest at 9% if delayed. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
