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" ?
SC held that the encashment of bank guarantees does not constitute payment of customs duty under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The respondents arbitrarily encashed bank guarantees without legal authorization, which constitutes unjust retention of funds. The Court directed immediate refund of the encashed amounts with 6% interest from the date of encashment, to be repaid within four months. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside, and the appeals were allowed without cost, affirming that the respondents had no legal right to retain the appellant's funds.
SC held that the encashment of bank guarantees does not constitute payment of customs duty under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The respondents arbitrarily encashed bank guarantees without legal authorization, which constitutes unjust retention of funds. The Court directed immediate refund of the encashed amounts with 6% interest from the date of encashment, to be repaid within four months. The impugned High Court judgment was set aside, and the appeals were allowed without cost, affirming that the respondents had no legal right to retain the appellant's funds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.