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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The SC held that the Appellant was competent to notify the Interim Coal Policy and to fix interim prices; the 20% surcharge for linked non-core consumers was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The High Court's reliance on earlier provincial authority was rejected as unsustainable. On unjust enrichment, the Court held claimants bore the onus to prove they had not passed the additional cost to third parties; absence of such evidence before the High Court vitiated their refund claim, though limited discretion was exercised to permit relevant documents in appeal. The High Court's order was set aside, the appeal allowed, and no refund was directed.
The SC held that the Appellant was competent to notify the Interim Coal Policy and to fix interim prices; the 20% surcharge for linked non-core consumers was not arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The High Court's reliance on earlier provincial authority was rejected as unsustainable. On unjust enrichment, the Court held claimants bore the onus to prove they had not passed the additional cost to third parties; absence of such evidence before the High Court vitiated their refund claim, though limited discretion was exercised to permit relevant documents in appeal. The High Court's order was set aside, the appeal allowed, and no refund was directed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.