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 doctrine of merger was examined concerning the jurisdiction of the respondent to adjudicate stamp duty u/ss 31 and 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The respondent's power u/s 47A(3) to examine instruments for correctness of value or duty payable is barred by the two-year limitation period from the instrument's registration date. The petitioner filed the merger order on 07.12.2011, but the respondent issued a show-cause notice on 20.03.2014, beyond the two-year period. The Delhi Towers Ltd. case held that court orders are subject to stamp duty, and the definition of 'conveyance' u/s 2(10) is inclusive. However, as the petitioner and ACIPL were wholly-owned subsidiaries of a common parent company, the merger order was exempt from stamp duty under Notification no. 13 dated 25.12.1937. The show-cause notice and impugned order were quashed, and the petition was allowed.
The doctrine of merger was examined concerning the jurisdiction of the respondent to adjudicate stamp duty u/ss 31 and 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The respondent's power u/s 47A(3) to examine instruments for correctness of value or duty payable is barred by the two-year limitation period from the instrument's registration date. The petitioner filed the merger order on 07.12.2011, but the respondent issued a show-cause notice on 20.03.2014, beyond the two-year period. The Delhi Towers Ltd. case held that court orders are subject to stamp duty, and the definition of 'conveyance' u/s 2(10) is inclusive. However, as the petitioner and ACIPL were wholly-owned subsidiaries of a common parent company, the merger order was exempt from stamp duty under Notification no. 13 dated 25.12.1937. The show-cause notice and impugned order 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 
