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 appeal arose from a dispute regarding the service of a demand notice and the subsequent filing of a petition u/s 95 of the Code. The appellant argued that the period for service of the demand notice should be counted as per Section 95(4)(b) of the Code, disregarding the period mentioned in the guarantee agreement. The Tribunal held that based on Clause 3 of the personal guarantee deed, the guarantor had 60 days from the date of the demand notice to pay the amount. The petition u/s 95 was filed prematurely, within one month of the demand notice, contrary to the agreement. The Tribunal correctly allowed the respondent's application and dismissed the appellant's petition u/s 95, along with imposing costs. The Appellate Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
The appeal arose from a dispute regarding the service of a demand notice and the subsequent filing of a petition u/s 95 of the Code. The appellant argued that the period for service of the demand notice should be counted as per Section 95(4)(b) of the Code, disregarding the period mentioned in the guarantee agreement. The Tribunal held that based on Clause 3 of the personal guarantee deed, the guarantor had 60 days from the date of the demand notice to pay the amount. The petition u/s 95 was filed prematurely, within one month of the demand notice, contrary to the agreement. The Tribunal correctly allowed the respondent's application and dismissed the appellant's petition u/s 95, along with imposing costs. The Appellate Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
