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" ?
Under the SARFAESI Act, a bank's charge takes priority over the State's claim for outstanding dues related to specific land. The High Court held that the charge created by the State for sales tax or VAT dues has no legal efficacy due to the SARFAESI Act and RDB Act provisions. The petitioner bank had created a prior charge in 2011, while the State's charge was in 2018. Therefore, the petitioner bank's charge has priority over the property auctioned to petitioner no. 2. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Under the SARFAESI Act, a bank's charge takes priority over the State's claim for outstanding dues related to specific land. The High Court held that the charge created by the State for sales tax or VAT dues has no legal efficacy due to the SARFAESI Act and RDB Act provisions. The petitioner bank had created a prior charge in 2011, while the State's charge was in 2018. Therefore, the petitioner bank's charge has priority over the property auctioned to petitioner no. 2. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
