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" ?
HC held that the Customs Department unlawfully seized and disposed of passengers' gold jewellery exceeding 400 grams, failed to account for proceeds of disposal, and issued a deficient refund order addressing only appraised value without recording disposal or redemption permissions by the OIO. The court found the Department's refusal to pay amounts due to the petitioners, despite the OIO attaining finality, amounted to deprivation of property without legal authority. The matter was treated as a grave procedural and statutory breach warranting further adjudication and was directed to be listed for hearing on 22 September 2025 for appropriate remedial orders.
HC held that the Customs Department unlawfully seized and disposed of passengers' gold jewellery exceeding 400 grams, failed to account for proceeds of disposal, and issued a deficient refund order addressing only appraised value without recording disposal or redemption permissions by the OIO. The court found the Department's refusal to pay amounts due to the petitioners, despite the OIO attaining finality, amounted to deprivation of property without legal authority. The matter was treated as a grave procedural and statutory breach warranting further adjudication and was directed to be listed for hearing on 22 September 2025 for appropriate remedial orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
