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" ?
Whether the press release of 01.10.2009 announcing modifications to the Mega Power Policy 2006 constitutes a 'Change in Law' under Article 13 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The key points are: The press release did not alter/amend/repeal the existing law as of 01.10.2009, it merely announced a proposal approved by the Cabinet subject to certain conditions. No vested rights were created for any party to the PPA on 01.10.2009. Accepting the argument would create legal uncertainty with two regimes operating between 01.10.2009 and 11.12.2009/14.12.2009, contrary to the rule of law principles of clarity and predictability. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is inapplicable as the respondent PSPCL was not the promisor. The customs duty exemption and policy document constituting the 'Change in Law' came into effect on 11.12.2009 and 14.12.2009 respectively, not on 01.10.2009. The State Commission rightly held that benefits under the Mega Power Status would accrue only from 30.07.2010, when it was granted, and not from any prior date.
Whether the press release of 01.10.2009 announcing modifications to the Mega Power Policy 2006 constitutes a 'Change in Law' under Article 13 of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). The key points are: The press release did not alter/amend/repeal the existing law as of 01.10.2009, it merely announced a proposal approved by the Cabinet subject to certain conditions. No vested rights were created for any party to the PPA on 01.10.2009. Accepting the argument would create legal uncertainty with two regimes operating between 01.10.2009 and 11.12.2009/14.12.2009, contrary to the rule of law principles of clarity and predictability. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is inapplicable as the respondent PSPCL was not the promisor. The customs duty exemption and policy document constituting the 'Change in Law' came into effect on 11.12.2009 and 14.12.2009 respectively, not on 01.10.2009. The State Commission rightly held that benefits under the Mega Power Status would accrue only from 30.07.2010, when it was granted, and not from any prior date.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
