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 court held that the Division Bench erred in not considering Section 58(f) of the Act. Despite the respondent's claim of threat and coercion in executing the Agreement, the burden was on him to prove it since he admitted to signing it. The First Impugned Order suffered from legal errors and could not withstand scrutiny. Regarding the delay, the appellant's plea of engaging counsel only for the delay condonation was rightly rejected as 'fantastic' by the Division Bench. The First Impugned Order was set aside, effectively nullifying the Second Impugned Order, though it was not faulted. However, costs of Rs.1,20,000 were imposed on the appellant for wasting judicial time, to be utilized for juvenile welfare, advocate-clerks' welfare, and legal aid as directed. The appeal was allowed.
The court held that the Division Bench erred in not considering Section 58(f) of the Act. Despite the respondent's claim of threat and coercion in executing the Agreement, the burden was on him to prove it since he admitted to signing it. The First Impugned Order suffered from legal errors and could not withstand scrutiny. Regarding the delay, the appellant's plea of engaging counsel only for the delay condonation was rightly rejected as 'fantastic' by the Division Bench. The First Impugned Order was set aside, effectively nullifying the Second Impugned Order, though it was not faulted. However, costs of Rs.1,20,000 were imposed on the appellant for wasting judicial time, to be utilized for juvenile welfare, advocate-clerks' welfare, and legal aid as directed. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
