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 ruled that the possession of immovable and movable assets was taken contrary to legal mandates under Section 14(1-A) of SARFAESI Act. The Additional District Magistrate improperly delegated possession authority, violating constitutional rights under Article 300A. The Additional Commissioner of Police was not authorized to further delegate possession powers, and the officers who took possession were not legally empowered. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to retake possession strictly in compliance with statutory provisions, ensuring proper notice to guarantors and adherence to procedural requirements. The judgment emphasizes the importance of following legal protocols in asset seizure proceedings.
HC ruled that the possession of immovable and movable assets was taken contrary to legal mandates under Section 14(1-A) of SARFAESI Act. The Additional District Magistrate improperly delegated possession authority, violating constitutional rights under Article 300A. The Additional Commissioner of Police was not authorized to further delegate possession powers, and the officers who took possession were not legally empowered. The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent to retake possession strictly in compliance with statutory provisions, ensuring proper notice to guarantors and adherence to procedural requirements. The judgment emphasizes the importance of following legal protocols in asset seizure proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
