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 found the Appellate Authority's order rendered without proper consideration of extant HC orders on the record and characterized the officers' affidavit as evasive and nonresponsive, noting admission of a prior writ order without explanation for non-compliance. The court adjourned the matter to 09.09.2025, conditional upon payment of Rs.5,000 by deduction from the salary of the respondent-officer who issued the impugned order, payable to the petitioner before the next date. The Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, U.P. (respondent no.1), was directed to file a personal affidavit explaining the conduct of the State officers in failing to follow the writ court's orders.
The HC found the Appellate Authority's order rendered without proper consideration of extant HC orders on the record and characterized the officers' affidavit as evasive and nonresponsive, noting admission of a prior writ order without explanation for non-compliance. The court adjourned the matter to 09.09.2025, conditional upon payment of Rs.5,000 by deduction from the salary of the respondent-officer who issued the impugned order, payable to the petitioner before the next date. The Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance, U.P. (respondent no.1), was directed to file a personal affidavit explaining the conduct of the State officers in failing to follow the writ court's orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
