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 quashed SEBI's revocation order of a settlement agreement involving entities accused of misrepresenting promoter holdings and violating minimum public shareholding requirements under LODR Regulations. The court held that SEBI's one-line revocation order, passed fourteen months after the original settlement without providing reasons or opportunity of hearing, violated principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem. Despite SEBI's contention that automatic revocation applied under Regulation 28 for non-compliance, the court found the regulator had continued engaging with the petitioners for fourteen months, acknowledging their difficulties in compliance due to interim court orders. The non-speaking, unreasoned revocation order was deemed unsustainable and prejudicial. The matter was remanded to SEBI for reconsideration with mandatory opportunity of hearing and reasoned decision-making.
The HC quashed SEBI's revocation order of a settlement agreement involving entities accused of misrepresenting promoter holdings and violating minimum public shareholding requirements under LODR Regulations. The court held that SEBI's one-line revocation order, passed fourteen months after the original settlement without providing reasons or opportunity of hearing, violated principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem. Despite SEBI's contention that automatic revocation applied under Regulation 28 for non-compliance, the court found the regulator had continued engaging with the petitioners for fourteen months, acknowledging their difficulties in compliance due to interim court orders. The non-speaking, unreasoned revocation order was deemed unsustainable and prejudicial. The matter was remanded to SEBI for reconsideration with mandatory opportunity of hearing and reasoned decision-making.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
