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" ?
NCLAT dismissed appeals seeking compensation for delayed possession and increased costs of EWS flats. Appellants claimed Rs. 42,42,000/- each, including rental damages, mental agony, interest on deposits, and litigation expenses. The tribunal held that compensation under Section 42A and 53N(1) of Competition Act is payable only for violation of CCI orders, which was not established. Despite CCI finding respondent's abuse of dominant position in the relevant geographic market, appellants' prior consent to cost enhancement barred their challenge. Claims for monthly rental of Rs. 10,000 and other damages were deemed unconvincing, particularly given the EWS qualification criteria of Rs. 25,000 annual income ceiling.
NCLAT dismissed appeals seeking compensation for delayed possession and increased costs of EWS flats. Appellants claimed Rs. 42,42,000/- each, including rental damages, mental agony, interest on deposits, and litigation expenses. The tribunal held that compensation under Section 42A and 53N(1) of Competition Act is payable only for violation of CCI orders, which was not established. Despite CCI finding respondent's abuse of dominant position in the relevant geographic market, appellants' prior consent to cost enhancement barred their challenge. Claims for monthly rental of Rs. 10,000 and other damages were deemed unconvincing, particularly given the EWS qualification criteria of Rs. 25,000 annual income ceiling.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
