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 held that the Income Tax Department is entitled to requisition and retain seized cash under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act. Following investigation of theft involving Rs. 1,40,00,000/-, the department identified an unexplained amount of Rs. 35,28,000/-. The court allowed the department's petition, quashing previous judicial orders and permitting the department to deposit the entire seized amount of Rs. 35,28,000/- in the P.D. Account within four weeks, in accordance with Income Tax Act provisions and rules, thereby affirming the department's statutory authority to manage seized funds during ongoing proceedings.
HC held that the Income Tax Department is entitled to requisition and retain seized cash under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act. Following investigation of theft involving Rs. 1,40,00,000/-, the department identified an unexplained amount of Rs. 35,28,000/-. The court allowed the department's petition, quashing previous judicial orders and permitting the department to deposit the entire seized amount of Rs. 35,28,000/- in the P.D. Account within four weeks, in accordance with Income Tax Act provisions and rules, thereby affirming the department's statutory authority to manage seized funds during ongoing proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
