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" ?
HC ruled bank accounts constitute "property" subject to provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act. The term "any property" in Section 281B(1) encompasses bank deposits, as money is explicitly recognized as attachable property under Section 60(1) CPC. The court rejected arguments that absence of specific mention of bank accounts (unlike GST Act) precludes attachment. However, attachment orders must be proportionate to probable tax demand including penalties. The security requirement should be sufficient to protect revenue interests without excessive property seizure. Mere existence of security in Magistrate's Court proceedings does not automatically satisfy Act's requirements. Blanket attachment orders exceeding probable demand are impermissible.
HC ruled bank accounts constitute "property" subject to provisional attachment under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act. The term "any property" in Section 281B(1) encompasses bank deposits, as money is explicitly recognized as attachable property under Section 60(1) CPC. The court rejected arguments that absence of specific mention of bank accounts (unlike GST Act) precludes attachment. However, attachment orders must be proportionate to probable tax demand including penalties. The security requirement should be sufficient to protect revenue interests without excessive property seizure. Mere existence of security in Magistrate's Court proceedings does not automatically satisfy Act's requirements. Blanket attachment orders exceeding probable demand are impermissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.