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 allowed the petition, finding SBI liable for cyber fraud losses. The court determined the petitioner was not negligent, as he did not share OTPs or payment credentials. The bank demonstrated significant service deficiency by failing to detect unusual transaction patterns, prevent unauthorized access, and take prompt action after fraud notification. The court held that the bank's security protocols were inadequate, breached by simple malware, and the Banking Ombudsman's order was legally unsustainable. The judgment emphasized the bank's duty to exercise reasonable care in protecting customer funds and responding to potential fraudulent transactions.
HC allowed the petition, finding SBI liable for cyber fraud losses. The court determined the petitioner was not negligent, as he did not share OTPs or payment credentials. The bank demonstrated significant service deficiency by failing to detect unusual transaction patterns, prevent unauthorized access, and take prompt action after fraud notification. The court held that the bank's security protocols were inadequate, breached by simple malware, and the Banking Ombudsman's order was legally unsustainable. The judgment emphasized the bank's duty to exercise reasonable care in protecting customer funds and responding to potential fraudulent transactions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
