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 AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It held that the confirmation of the order beyond 180 days did not result in its lapse, considering the Covid-19 period and the Supreme Court's extension. The AT also rejected the ground that the attached property being joint property without notice to the joint holder invalidated the order, as there was no material to show it was joint property, and the appeal was not preferred by any joint holder. Thus, no interference was warranted in the impugned order.
The AT dismissed the appeal challenging the provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It held that the confirmation of the order beyond 180 days did not result in its lapse, considering the Covid-19 period and the Supreme Court's extension. The AT also rejected the ground that the attached property being joint property without notice to the joint holder invalidated the order, as there was no material to show it was joint property, and the appeal was not preferred by any joint holder. Thus, no interference was warranted in the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
