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 examined the seizure orders and found that the officer had analyzed the relevant material and formed a "reason to believe" before effecting seizures. The Competent Authority's order confirming the seizures was based on tangible material. At this stage, a Constitutional Court cannot interdict investigations or probe evidentiary value. The Court exercises judicial review to determine if objective and tangible material was available before seizure action. The writ Court is not an appellate authority and cannot evaluate disputed facts like the nature of transactions, connections with other entities, and alleged FEMA violations. The Single Judge rightly relegated the matter to the Adjudicating Authority, which will decide on the sanctity of seizure and validity of the Confirmation Order while adjudicating the complaint. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's observations.
The High Court examined the seizure orders and found that the officer had analyzed the relevant material and formed a "reason to believe" before effecting seizures. The Competent Authority's order confirming the seizures was based on tangible material. At this stage, a Constitutional Court cannot interdict investigations or probe evidentiary value. The Court exercises judicial review to determine if objective and tangible material was available before seizure action. The writ Court is not an appellate authority and cannot evaluate disputed facts like the nature of transactions, connections with other entities, and alleged FEMA violations. The Single Judge rightly relegated the matter to the Adjudicating Authority, which will decide on the sanctity of seizure and validity of the Confirmation Order while adjudicating the complaint. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's observations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
