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 High Court considered the legality of a penalty imposed u/s 31(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, due to the want of Form 28B. The issue was whether the defendants were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,68,301.58 paisa with interest to the plaintiff. The Court found that the delay in filing the appeal was properly discussed by the appellate court and held that the objection of delay had no merit. The Commercial Tax Tribunal's decision on the penalty was deemed improper as Form 28B was not required for transportation of goods. The trial court ordered a refund of the penalty amount with interest, which the first appellate court overturned based on extraneous facts. The defendants did not dispute the penalty deposit, and it was found that no contravention of the Act had occurred. The penalty was deemed to be refunded based on equity and justice principles. The High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment and upheld the trial court's decision, allowing the appeal.
The High Court considered the legality of a penalty imposed u/s 31(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, due to the want of Form 28B. The issue was whether the defendants were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,68,301.58 paisa with interest to the plaintiff. The Court found that the delay in filing the appeal was properly discussed by the appellate court and held that the objection of delay had no merit. The Commercial Tax Tribunal's decision on the penalty was deemed improper as Form 28B was not required for transportation of goods. The trial court ordered a refund of the penalty amount with interest, which the first appellate court overturned based on extraneous facts. The defendants did not dispute the penalty deposit, and it was found that no contravention of the Act had occurred. The penalty was deemed to be refunded based on equity and justice principles. The High Court set aside the first appellate court's judgment and upheld the trial court's decision, allowing the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.