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 NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the 03.01.2024 order merely substituted the investigating agency designated by the earlier 11.03.2020 order and did not constitute a recall or review of that order. The Tribunal found the principal order remained in full effect and the modification did not expand or alter its substantive objective; it only changed the machinery to carry out the previously authorized investigation. The change did not impinge on the appellant's legal rights or exceed NCLT's jurisdiction. Pendency of a writ filed by the respondent in the HC was held not to preclude independent adjudication by the Tribunal or necessitate interference with the impugned order.
The NCLAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the 03.01.2024 order merely substituted the investigating agency designated by the earlier 11.03.2020 order and did not constitute a recall or review of that order. The Tribunal found the principal order remained in full effect and the modification did not expand or alter its substantive objective; it only changed the machinery to carry out the previously authorized investigation. The change did not impinge on the appellant's legal rights or exceed NCLT's jurisdiction. Pendency of a writ filed by the respondent in the HC was held not to preclude independent adjudication by the Tribunal or necessitate interference with the impugned order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
