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 two key issues: 1) The duration for which property can be retained u/s 20(3) of PMLA, 2002, and 2) The constitution of the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded the 180-day limit for retaining seized property due to Covid-19 related extensions. Citing precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the excluded period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should not count towards the 180-day limit. Additionally, it upheld the competence of a single-member bench as the Adjudicating Authority based on judgments from Calcutta High Court and Telangana High Court. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues: 1) The duration for which property can be retained u/s 20(3) of PMLA, 2002, and 2) The constitution of the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority exceeded the 180-day limit for retaining seized property due to Covid-19 related extensions. Citing precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the excluded period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should not count towards the 180-day limit. Additionally, it upheld the competence of a single-member bench as the Adjudicating Authority based on judgments from Calcutta High Court and Telangana High Court. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
