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" ?
The HC determined that the third respondent, with an asset size of Rs.16.30 crores as of March 31, 2024, failed to meet the Rs.100 crores threshold established in the February 24, 2020 Notification. Consequently, the respondent does not qualify as a "financial institution" under Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and therefore cannot be considered a "secured creditor" entitled to invoke Section 14 provisions. Since the respondent lacked standing to file an application with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for possession of secured assets, the Court issued a writ of Prohibition, finding that the jurisdictional prerequisite was not satisfied. The application was accordingly disposed of.
The HC determined that the third respondent, with an asset size of Rs.16.30 crores as of March 31, 2024, failed to meet the Rs.100 crores threshold established in the February 24, 2020 Notification. Consequently, the respondent does not qualify as a "financial institution" under Section 2(1)(m)(iv) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and therefore cannot be considered a "secured creditor" entitled to invoke Section 14 provisions. Since the respondent lacked standing to file an application with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for possession of secured assets, the Court issued a writ of Prohibition, finding that the jurisdictional prerequisite was not satisfied. The application was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
