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 notification GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 amended the relevant clause, which came into effect on the date of publication. Consequently, the Directorate had 90 days from 19.04.2018 to file the prosecution complaint. The prosecution complaint was filed on 16.07.2018, within the limitation period of 90 days. The Supreme Court clarified that a subsequent amendment is considered clarificatory and applied retrospectively only when the pre-amended law was vague or ambiguous, making interpretation impossible without the amendment. However, no such difficulty existed in interpreting the PMLA, 2002, making the amendment substantive and prospective. Procedural amendments apply retrospectively to actions after the date they come into force, even if the claim is of an anterior date. Since the Directorate complied with the amended law by filing the prosecution complaint within 90 days of 19.04.2018, the continued attachment of properties during the pendency is valid.
The notification GSR 383(E) dated 19.04.2018 amended the relevant clause, which came into effect on the date of publication. Consequently, the Directorate had 90 days from 19.04.2018 to file the prosecution complaint. The prosecution complaint was filed on 16.07.2018, within the limitation period of 90 days. The Supreme Court clarified that a subsequent amendment is considered clarificatory and applied retrospectively only when the pre-amended law was vague or ambiguous, making interpretation impossible without the amendment. However, no such difficulty existed in interpreting the PMLA, 2002, making the amendment substantive and prospective. Procedural amendments apply retrospectively to actions after the date they come into force, even if the claim is of an anterior date. Since the Directorate complied with the amended law by filing the prosecution complaint within 90 days of 19.04.2018, the continued attachment of properties during the pendency is valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
