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 refused to disturb a communication granting provisional release of seized goods and directed the Petitioner to join the ongoing investigation; the Petition challenging that communication was dismissed. The Court found the Petitioner's claim of local manufacture contradicted by labels indicating foreign origin and held that misdeclaration - including labelling as 'Made in China' or other foreign jurisdictions - undermines consumer protection and public interest, particularly against the policy promoting 'Made in India'. Given the Petitioner's failure to produce invoices and the large quantity seized, the HC declined to interfere with the 10 June 2025 communication, leaving the Petitioner free to participate in the investigation and seek assessment or release in accordance with law.
The HC refused to disturb a communication granting provisional release of seized goods and directed the Petitioner to join the ongoing investigation; the Petition challenging that communication was dismissed. The Court found the Petitioner's claim of local manufacture contradicted by labels indicating foreign origin and held that misdeclaration - including labelling as 'Made in China' or other foreign jurisdictions - undermines consumer protection and public interest, particularly against the policy promoting 'Made in India'. Given the Petitioner's failure to produce invoices and the large quantity seized, the HC declined to interfere with the 10 June 2025 communication, leaving the Petitioner free to participate in the investigation and seek assessment or release in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
