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 it possessed jurisdiction to supervise and substitute the Special Committee and to define its mandate in the company petition concerning the mutual fund scheme administered by the ex-management respondents. The court found systemic irregularities, rejected the ex-management's objection to maintainability, set aside the rejection order dated 29 Nov 2023 and remitted the anonymized claimant's application for fresh consideration by the authority designated under this judgment. The interim embargo against payments to the ex-management was not impliedly merged into the final order of 29 May 2013 and continues to restrain disbursements to those parties. The court directed priority disbursement to retail/unrelated investors, required unclaimed redemption proceeds to be transferred to the Investor Protection and Education Fund, and disposed of the applications.
The HC held that it possessed jurisdiction to supervise and substitute the Special Committee and to define its mandate in the company petition concerning the mutual fund scheme administered by the ex-management respondents. The court found systemic irregularities, rejected the ex-management's objection to maintainability, set aside the rejection order dated 29 Nov 2023 and remitted the anonymized claimant's application for fresh consideration by the authority designated under this judgment. The interim embargo against payments to the ex-management was not impliedly merged into the final order of 29 May 2013 and continues to restrain disbursements to those parties. The court directed priority disbursement to retail/unrelated investors, required unclaimed redemption proceeds to be transferred to the Investor Protection and Education Fund, and disposed of the applications.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
