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 writ petition filed by a sleeping partner seeking disclosure of information obtained during search and seizure under section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for use in private arbitration proceedings against co-partners. The court held that the petitioner, not being bonafidely entitled to the information and seeking it solely for personal defence in arbitration, failed to demonstrate any public interest or justifiable ground for relief. The Act and rules do not authorize disclosure of such information to third parties absent clear statutory mandate. Information collected during search and seizure cannot be released for private disputes, and no writ of mandamus can compel the respondents to provide it. However, if such information is used by authorities against the petitioner in prosecution, he would be entitled to it, a circumstance not present here.
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed by a sleeping partner seeking disclosure of information obtained during search and seizure under section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act for use in private arbitration proceedings against co-partners. The court held that the petitioner, not being bonafidely entitled to the information and seeking it solely for personal defence in arbitration, failed to demonstrate any public interest or justifiable ground for relief. The Act and rules do not authorize disclosure of such information to third parties absent clear statutory mandate. Information collected during search and seizure cannot be released for private disputes, and no writ of mandamus can compel the respondents to provide it. However, if such information is used by authorities against the petitioner in prosecution, he would be entitled to it, a circumstance not present here.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
