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" ?
Summoning order u/ss 53 and 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, was passed based on the assumption that the cash was the beneficial property of the applicant accumulated through illegal gratification. However, the court failed to apply its mind as required by the Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and Pepsi Foods Ltd. cases. The order merely summarized the complaint, sanction order, and jurisdiction without recording reasons for taking cognizance, prima facie satisfaction, or proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned summoning order contradicted the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh, Pepsi Foods Ltd., and Mehmood UL Rehman cases. Therefore, the High Court set aside the summoning order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Summoning order u/ss 53 and 3 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, was passed based on the assumption that the cash was the beneficial property of the applicant accumulated through illegal gratification. However, the court failed to apply its mind as required by the Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh and Pepsi Foods Ltd. cases. The order merely summarized the complaint, sanction order, and jurisdiction without recording reasons for taking cognizance, prima facie satisfaction, or proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned summoning order contradicted the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalankumar Singh, Pepsi Foods Ltd., and Mehmood UL Rehman cases. Therefore, the High Court set aside the summoning order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.