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 respondent-company purchased a flat for residential use of its director and family, not for commercial purposes. The appellant-builder wrongfully cancelled the flat allotment and forfeited the deposited amount. The complaint was maintainable as the respondent qualified as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The NCDRC rightly directed refund of the forfeited amount with interest. The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC order, directing partial refund within two weeks and the balance by 31st December 2024, failing which recovery as arrears of land revenue.
The respondent-company purchased a flat for residential use of its director and family, not for commercial purposes. The appellant-builder wrongfully cancelled the flat allotment and forfeited the deposited amount. The complaint was maintainable as the respondent qualified as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The NCDRC rightly directed refund of the forfeited amount with interest. The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC order, directing partial refund within two weeks and the balance by 31st December 2024, failing which recovery as arrears of land revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
