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 Appellate Tribunal addressed issues related to money laundering, proceeds of crime from smuggling narcotics and running extortion rackets. The case involved double attachment of properties under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. The Tribunal held that the attachment of properties was not justified as it led to double attachment, contrary to legal principles. The respondents' attempt to justify attachment based on alleged violations of Floor Space Index (FSI) was deemed inappropriate as FSI violations were not relevant to the case. The Tribunal emphasized that for property to be confirmed as involved in money laundering, the Adjudicating Authority must record a finding to that effect. Since the property in question had already been attached in another context, the Tribunal quashed the impugned orders of attachment and allowed the appeal.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed issues related to money laundering, proceeds of crime from smuggling narcotics and running extortion rackets. The case involved double attachment of properties under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018. The Tribunal held that the attachment of properties was not justified as it led to double attachment, contrary to legal principles. The respondents' attempt to justify attachment based on alleged violations of Floor Space Index (FSI) was deemed inappropriate as FSI violations were not relevant to the case. The Tribunal emphasized that for property to be confirmed as involved in money laundering, the Adjudicating Authority must record a finding to that effect. Since the property in question had already been attached in another context, the Tribunal quashed the impugned orders of attachment and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
