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 charge created by the bank u/s 26E of the SARFAESI Act would take precedence over the charge created by the respondent u/s 48 of the VAT Act. Relying on a previous judgment, the court ruled that the charge for VAT dues has no legal efficacy in view of the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act. As the bank had created the charge prior in time, the subsequent charge created by the respondent in 2019 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the respondent was directed to remove the charge over the property, and the mutation entry in the Revenue Record was ordered to be deleted. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The court held that the charge created by the bank u/s 26E of the SARFAESI Act would take precedence over the charge created by the respondent u/s 48 of the VAT Act. Relying on a previous judgment, the court ruled that the charge for VAT dues has no legal efficacy in view of the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act. As the bank had created the charge prior in time, the subsequent charge created by the respondent in 2019 cannot be sustained. Consequently, the respondent was directed to remove the charge over the property, and the mutation entry in the Revenue Record was ordered to be deleted. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
