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" ?
Non-disclosure of foreign assets and false statements made by the petitioners, office bearers of certain business establishments of two British Companies, u/s 50 of the Black Money Act. The Act came into force on 01-07-2015, and the petitioners were summoned and assessed u/s 10 in 2018. The High Court held that criminal law cannot be set into motion against the petitioners as it violates Article 20 of the Constitution, which is a fundamental right and supersedes any statutory provision. The rigour of the Act's provisions fails to pass the muster of Article 20, leading to the obliteration of the crime against the petitioners. The impugned order regarding criminal liability u/s 72(c) of the Act remains stayed.
Non-disclosure of foreign assets and false statements made by the petitioners, office bearers of certain business establishments of two British Companies, u/s 50 of the Black Money Act. The Act came into force on 01-07-2015, and the petitioners were summoned and assessed u/s 10 in 2018. The High Court held that criminal law cannot be set into motion against the petitioners as it violates Article 20 of the Constitution, which is a fundamental right and supersedes any statutory provision. The rigour of the Act's provisions fails to pass the muster of Article 20, leading to the obliteration of the crime against the petitioners. The impugned order regarding criminal liability u/s 72(c) of the Act remains stayed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.