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 held that the agreement for sale executed on 2nd January 1989 is neither illegal nor void under FERA, 1973, as no actual transfer of property or title occurred without RBI permission. Section 47(2) implies that prohibited acts under FERA require prior RBI approval before execution, but this does not invalidate agreements containing such conditions. The agreement did not explicitly require RBI permission under Section 31, and it complied with other statutory requirements. Enforcement of the agreement is not barred by Section 31 or Section 78, which restrict jurisdiction only in specific cases involving title transfer without permission. Therefore, the civil suit to enforce the agreement is maintainable, and the Court's jurisdiction is not ousted. Questions of enforceability and alternative remedies are reserved for determination on the suit's merits.
The HC held that the agreement for sale executed on 2nd January 1989 is neither illegal nor void under FERA, 1973, as no actual transfer of property or title occurred without RBI permission. Section 47(2) implies that prohibited acts under FERA require prior RBI approval before execution, but this does not invalidate agreements containing such conditions. The agreement did not explicitly require RBI permission under Section 31, and it complied with other statutory requirements. Enforcement of the agreement is not barred by Section 31 or Section 78, which restrict jurisdiction only in specific cases involving title transfer without permission. Therefore, the civil suit to enforce the agreement is maintainable, and the Court's jurisdiction is not ousted. Questions of enforceability and alternative remedies are reserved for determination on the suit's merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.