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 dismissed the challenge insofar as relief for striking down the impugned clarification dated 25 September 2020 has already been worked out by earlier batch litigation; consequently, while adjudicating the Petitioners' duty-drawback claims the Respondents are barred from relying upon the impugned clarification. The court directed that reliance on that clarification would prima facie constitute impermissible judicial indiscipline and must not be engaged in. In view of the foregoing, the petition is disposed of, with the operative consequence that duty-drawback processing shall proceed without reference to the 25 September 2020 clarification and subject to existing law and the earlier judicial pronouncement.
The HC dismissed the challenge insofar as relief for striking down the impugned clarification dated 25 September 2020 has already been worked out by earlier batch litigation; consequently, while adjudicating the Petitioners' duty-drawback claims the Respondents are barred from relying upon the impugned clarification. The court directed that reliance on that clarification would prima facie constitute impermissible judicial indiscipline and must not be engaged in. In view of the foregoing, the petition is disposed of, with the operative consequence that duty-drawback processing shall proceed without reference to the 25 September 2020 clarification and subject to existing law and the earlier judicial pronouncement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.