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 held that failure to serve Show Cause Notice within six months under Section 124(a) read with Section 110 of Customs Act 1962 entitled the respondent to return of seized goods. While subsequent confiscation order was valid, it operated independently of the original seizure dispute. The court ruled that immediate possession must be restored to respondent despite confiscation order, maintaining status quo ante until enforcement. The interpretation of "given" in the statute requires actual service, not mere issuance of notice. Authorities were directed to return seized gold within four weeks, though confiscation rights remained preserved for separate enforcement.
HC held that failure to serve Show Cause Notice within six months under Section 124(a) read with Section 110 of Customs Act 1962 entitled the respondent to return of seized goods. While subsequent confiscation order was valid, it operated independently of the original seizure dispute. The court ruled that immediate possession must be restored to respondent despite confiscation order, maintaining status quo ante until enforcement. The interpretation of "given" in the statute requires actual service, not mere issuance of notice. Authorities were directed to return seized gold within four weeks, though confiscation rights remained preserved for separate enforcement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.