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 SC dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants are not entitled to deemed export benefits under Para 8.3 of the FTP. The Court held the Press Release did not constitute "law" under the PPA and, in any event, the relevant Notifications alone could not confer entitlement because the appellants failed to satisfy mandatory prerequisites-notably the ICB requirement for supply of goods at the IPP or EPC stage-and procured components through related entities. The DGFT circulars were characterized as clarificatory and, even if treated as Change in Law, would not confer benefits where preconditions were unmet. No restitutionary relief or compensation was awarded; the APTEL judgment dated 04.07.2017 was affirmed.
The SC dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellants are not entitled to deemed export benefits under Para 8.3 of the FTP. The Court held the Press Release did not constitute "law" under the PPA and, in any event, the relevant Notifications alone could not confer entitlement because the appellants failed to satisfy mandatory prerequisites-notably the ICB requirement for supply of goods at the IPP or EPC stage-and procured components through related entities. The DGFT circulars were characterized as clarificatory and, even if treated as Change in Law, would not confer benefits where preconditions were unmet. No restitutionary relief or compensation was awarded; the APTEL judgment dated 04.07.2017 was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.