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" ?
SC determined the limitation period for filing a consumer complaint did not start from January 2015 when the indemnity undertaking was executed. While initial cause of action arose in July 2015 after six months expired, parties continued engagement through correspondence and meetings with respondent and escrow agent. The complaint's focus was securing title of already-possessed flats rather than seeking escrow release. NCDRC erred in its limitation calculation since appellants sought registration and prevention of third-party alienation, not flat possession. The limitation period applies differently when relief sought relates to title security of obtained property versus property acquisition. Appeal allowed, complaint deemed within time limitations.
SC determined the limitation period for filing a consumer complaint did not start from January 2015 when the indemnity undertaking was executed. While initial cause of action arose in July 2015 after six months expired, parties continued engagement through correspondence and meetings with respondent and escrow agent. The complaint's focus was securing title of already-possessed flats rather than seeking escrow release. NCDRC erred in its limitation calculation since appellants sought registration and prevention of third-party alienation, not flat possession. The limitation period applies differently when relief sought relates to title security of obtained property versus property acquisition. Appeal allowed, complaint deemed within time limitations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
