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 declined to interfere with the Tribunal's refusal to condone a 188-day delay in filing an appeal. The Court recognized its limited supervisory jurisdiction, noting it cannot function as an appellate authority when reviewing such discretionary decisions. The Tribunal's determination regarding insufficient cause for delay showed no illegality or perversity warranting judicial intervention. The Court rejected the petitioner's misplaced reliance on CPC provisions and emphasized that the appropriate remedy was filing an appeal under Section 15Z of SEBI Act, 1992, rather than pursuing a writ petition. Finding no violation of natural justice or statutory requirements, the HC dismissed the petition as lacking merit.
The HC declined to interfere with the Tribunal's refusal to condone a 188-day delay in filing an appeal. The Court recognized its limited supervisory jurisdiction, noting it cannot function as an appellate authority when reviewing such discretionary decisions. The Tribunal's determination regarding insufficient cause for delay showed no illegality or perversity warranting judicial intervention. The Court rejected the petitioner's misplaced reliance on CPC provisions and emphasized that the appropriate remedy was filing an appeal under Section 15Z of SEBI Act, 1992, rather than pursuing a writ petition. Finding no violation of natural justice or statutory requirements, the HC dismissed the petition as lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
