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 reviewed a case involving proceedings under FERA against a juristic person. The petitioner contended that the complaint was invalid as it was not filed by the authorized personnel as required by Section 61 (2) (ii) of FERA, 1973. The court found that the complaint lacked proper authorization and relied on a statement that did not support the allegations. Referring to a legal precedent, the court determined that the petitioner should be exonerated from criminal prosecution due to the lack of merit in the case. Consequently, the court deemed the continuation of the complaint case as an abuse of the court process and quashed it.
The High Court reviewed a case involving proceedings under FERA against a juristic person. The petitioner contended that the complaint was invalid as it was not filed by the authorized personnel as required by Section 61 (2) (ii) of FERA, 1973. The court found that the complaint lacked proper authorization and relied on a statement that did not support the allegations. Referring to a legal precedent, the court determined that the petitioner should be exonerated from criminal prosecution due to the lack of merit in the case. Consequently, the court deemed the continuation of the complaint case as an abuse of the court process and quashed it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
