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 upheld validity of Section 132 of Companies Act 2013 and NFRA Rules while addressing disciplinary proceedings against audit firms and partners. Court rejected challenges based on vicarious liability, finding that firms and partners share unified responsibility under Companies Act framework. Retroactive application challenge was dismissed as Section 132 merely modified enforcement mechanism without creating new liabilities. However, proceedings were invalidated due to procedural defects in NFRA's structure where same Executive Body both issued findings and initiated disciplinary action, violating principles of natural justice and creating reasonable likelihood of bias. Court emphasized need for separate divisions within NFRA to maintain procedural fairness and avoid predetermination in disciplinary matters.
HC upheld validity of Section 132 of Companies Act 2013 and NFRA Rules while addressing disciplinary proceedings against audit firms and partners. Court rejected challenges based on vicarious liability, finding that firms and partners share unified responsibility under Companies Act framework. Retroactive application challenge was dismissed as Section 132 merely modified enforcement mechanism without creating new liabilities. However, proceedings were invalidated due to procedural defects in NFRA's structure where same Executive Body both issued findings and initiated disciplinary action, violating principles of natural justice and creating reasonable likelihood of bias. Court emphasized need for separate divisions within NFRA to maintain procedural fairness and avoid predetermination in disciplinary matters.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
