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 review petition challenges the order imposing interest liability over the withheld amount and cost on the Managing Director. The court held that reviewing an order is limited and can only be done under specific conditions laid down by the Supreme Court. Regarding the interest liability, the court found no ambiguity as it was based on the applicable regulations. Challenging this would amount to an appeal rather than a review. As for the cost imposed on the Managing Director, the court held that even if it was a wrong consideration, it cannot be a ground for review but an appeal. If the Managing Director was not a party, his individual liability cannot be questioned by others. Applying the principles for reviewing orders, the court dismissed the review petition.
The review petition challenges the order imposing interest liability over the withheld amount and cost on the Managing Director. The court held that reviewing an order is limited and can only be done under specific conditions laid down by the Supreme Court. Regarding the interest liability, the court found no ambiguity as it was based on the applicable regulations. Challenging this would amount to an appeal rather than a review. As for the cost imposed on the Managing Director, the court held that even if it was a wrong consideration, it cannot be a ground for review but an appeal. If the Managing Director was not a party, his individual liability cannot be questioned by others. Applying the principles for reviewing orders, the court dismissed the review petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.