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" ?
AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order imposing a monetary penalty. The Tribunal held that the term "persons" in Section 10(5) of the Act of 1999 and Para 8, Part B of the RBI Master Direction is not confined to natural persons but encompasses companies and firms; consequently, acceptance of funds from a company or firm by the Appellant-supported by declarations from individual students for foreign exchange remittance-did not contravene Section 10(5) or Para 8. The penalty was therefore unwarranted. The Tribunal clarified that this determination is strictly confined to the statutory interpretation of Section 10(5) and Para 8, Part B and has limited precedential effect.
AT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order imposing a monetary penalty. The Tribunal held that the term "persons" in Section 10(5) of the Act of 1999 and Para 8, Part B of the RBI Master Direction is not confined to natural persons but encompasses companies and firms; consequently, acceptance of funds from a company or firm by the Appellant-supported by declarations from individual students for foreign exchange remittance-did not contravene Section 10(5) or Para 8. The penalty was therefore unwarranted. The Tribunal clarified that this determination is strictly confined to the statutory interpretation of Section 10(5) and Para 8, Part B and has limited precedential effect.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.