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 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.