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 dismissed the petition and upheld the Disciplinary Committee's order suspending the IP's registration for two years (effective 16.09.2022) and directing refund of half the fees paid to a related professional firm. The HC affirmed findings that the IP engaged a related party improperly, failed to file an avoidance application in breach of Regulation 35A, and caused payment of excessive fees contrary to the Liquidation Regulations. The court found procedural compliance by the regulator despite an inspection order issued by an improper officer, and concluded the DC reasonably determined that services charged duplicated the liquidator's functions. Relief sought by the IP was refused.
HC dismissed the petition and upheld the Disciplinary Committee's order suspending the IP's registration for two years (effective 16.09.2022) and directing refund of half the fees paid to a related professional firm. The HC affirmed findings that the IP engaged a related party improperly, failed to file an avoidance application in breach of Regulation 35A, and caused payment of excessive fees contrary to the Liquidation Regulations. The court found procedural compliance by the regulator despite an inspection order issued by an improper officer, and concluded the DC reasonably determined that services charged duplicated the liquidator's functions. Relief sought by the IP was refused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
