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 the impugned appellate order that partially cancelled MEIS scrips on the ground of excess availing, finding the Appellate Authority failed to apply its mind or provide reasons under Section 9(4) of the FTDR Act read with Rule 10 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The court noted the retrospective cancellation was impermissible as the scrips had expired before initiation of cancellation proceedings. The alleged contravention related solely to foreign trade policy and did not satisfy the criteria under Rule 10(a), (b), or (c), with no proper justification under Rule 10(d). The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, directing the authority to consider the grounds raised and record reasoned findings. The petitions were allowed by way of remand.
The HC quashed the impugned appellate order that partially cancelled MEIS scrips on the ground of excess availing, finding the Appellate Authority failed to apply its mind or provide reasons under Section 9(4) of the FTDR Act read with Rule 10 of the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. The court noted the retrospective cancellation was impermissible as the scrips had expired before initiation of cancellation proceedings. The alleged contravention related solely to foreign trade policy and did not satisfy the criteria under Rule 10(a), (b), or (c), with no proper justification under Rule 10(d). The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and principles of natural justice, directing the authority to consider the grounds raised and record reasoned findings. The petitions were allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.