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 dismissed the suit as barred by limitation under Article 18 of the Limitation Act, holding that the limitation period commenced from the date of the invoice, not from denial of payment or legal notice reply. The court distinguished winding-up proceedings from recovery suits and ruled that TDS deposit certificates against specific invoices extended the limitation period, creating a fresh cause of action. Consequently, claims relating to invoices No. 370 and 371, filed within three years of TDS deposit, were held maintainable, while others were time-barred. The defendants were directed to pay Rs. 24,27,000 plus 6% interest per annum from invoice date until payment. The appeal was allowed in part accordingly.
The HC dismissed the suit as barred by limitation under Article 18 of the Limitation Act, holding that the limitation period commenced from the date of the invoice, not from denial of payment or legal notice reply. The court distinguished winding-up proceedings from recovery suits and ruled that TDS deposit certificates against specific invoices extended the limitation period, creating a fresh cause of action. Consequently, claims relating to invoices No. 370 and 371, filed within three years of TDS deposit, were held maintainable, while others were time-barred. The defendants were directed to pay Rs. 24,27,000 plus 6% interest per annum from invoice date until payment. The appeal was allowed in part accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
