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 DRAT erred in remanding the matter to DRT for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and debt status under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The DRAT failed to fulfill its appellate authority role by not addressing substantive legal issues raised before it, despite having sufficient factual material to decide HDFC's claims against Ashima and BBK. The court emphasized that remand orders should not be issued lightly, particularly in cases pending for nearly 20 years. The HC directed DRAT to decide the appeals on merits without further remand to DRT, noting that remand is only justified when re-trial is necessary or evidence is insufficient for disposition.
The HC determined that DRAT erred in remanding the matter to DRT for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and debt status under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The DRAT failed to fulfill its appellate authority role by not addressing substantive legal issues raised before it, despite having sufficient factual material to decide HDFC's claims against Ashima and BBK. The court emphasized that remand orders should not be issued lightly, particularly in cases pending for nearly 20 years. The HC directed DRAT to decide the appeals on merits without further remand to DRT, noting that remand is only justified when re-trial is necessary or evidence is insufficient for disposition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
