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 CESTAT held that a power of attorney (PoA) holder acts solely as an agent of the principal and is not the beneficial owner; the PoA terminates upon the principal's death. Since the sole proprietor was absolved of wrongdoing and no dues were adjudged, reviving proceedings against the PoA holder post the proprietor's death was impermissible. The appeal identified only the proprietorship firm as a respondent, not the PoA holder, precluding liability on the latter. Further, proceedings against the sole proprietorship abate upon the proprietor's death under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, consistent with precedent holding that demands against deceased proprietors lapse absent enforcement mechanisms. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of, affirming that liability does not survive the proprietor's death and cannot be fastened on the PoA holder.
The CESTAT held that a power of attorney (PoA) holder acts solely as an agent of the principal and is not the beneficial owner; the PoA terminates upon the principal's death. Since the sole proprietor was absolved of wrongdoing and no dues were adjudged, reviving proceedings against the PoA holder post the proprietor's death was impermissible. The appeal identified only the proprietorship firm as a respondent, not the PoA holder, precluding liability on the latter. Further, proceedings against the sole proprietorship abate upon the proprietor's death under Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, consistent with precedent holding that demands against deceased proprietors lapse absent enforcement mechanisms. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of, affirming that liability does not survive the proprietor's death and cannot be fastened on the PoA holder.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.