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 appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order that set aside the majority arbitral award and upheld the dissenting award, thereby permitting recovery of losses in the demat account. The court held there was no jurisdictional error under Section 37 or excess of power under Section 34 of the Act. The appellant had actual knowledge and post-trade confirmation of repeated transactions over three months and failed to protest, so absence of pre-trade authorisation under exchange regulations could not vitiate confirmed trades or excuse resultant losses. Any violation of trading regulations may attract regulatory or disciplinary consequences for the broker but does not entitle a constituent who confirmed transactions to repudiate settled trading losses.
The HC dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order that set aside the majority arbitral award and upheld the dissenting award, thereby permitting recovery of losses in the demat account. The court held there was no jurisdictional error under Section 37 or excess of power under Section 34 of the Act. The appellant had actual knowledge and post-trade confirmation of repeated transactions over three months and failed to protest, so absence of pre-trade authorisation under exchange regulations could not vitiate confirmed trades or excuse resultant losses. Any violation of trading regulations may attract regulatory or disciplinary consequences for the broker but does not entitle a constituent who confirmed transactions to repudiate settled trading losses.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
