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 on penalty imposition under Companies Act s.203(5) for non-compliance with managerial appointment requirements. Authority's discretionary power in penalty assessment was confirmed, including ability to consider mitigating circumstances. While mens rea is irrelevant for establishing contravention, adjudicating authority retains discretion in quantum determination within statutory limits (1-5 lakhs for company, up to 50,000 for directors, plus continuing penalties). Authority's calculation excluding COVID period was deemed reasonable exercise of discretion. Court upheld penalty assessment as neither illegal nor arbitrary, finding no grounds for interference with authority's discretionary determination. Petition challenging penalty quantum dismissed.
HC ruled on penalty imposition under Companies Act s.203(5) for non-compliance with managerial appointment requirements. Authority's discretionary power in penalty assessment was confirmed, including ability to consider mitigating circumstances. While mens rea is irrelevant for establishing contravention, adjudicating authority retains discretion in quantum determination within statutory limits (1-5 lakhs for company, up to 50,000 for directors, plus continuing penalties). Authority's calculation excluding COVID period was deemed reasonable exercise of discretion. Court upheld penalty assessment as neither illegal nor arbitrary, finding no grounds for interference with authority's discretionary determination. Petition challenging penalty quantum dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
