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 petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under Section 5 of the PMLA, holding them non-maintainable under Article 226 because an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy exists under Section 26 of the PMLA. The court observed that the statutory scheme provides a self-contained appellate mechanism whereby any aggrieved person may appeal orders of the Adjudicating Authority to the Appellate Tribunal, and therefore questions as to the validity, scope and effect of attachment orders must be determined within the framework of the Act. In light of the available remedy, the HC declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction and disposed of the petitions.
The HC dismissed the petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under Section 5 of the PMLA, holding them non-maintainable under Article 226 because an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy exists under Section 26 of the PMLA. The court observed that the statutory scheme provides a self-contained appellate mechanism whereby any aggrieved person may appeal orders of the Adjudicating Authority to the Appellate Tribunal, and therefore questions as to the validity, scope and effect of attachment orders must be determined within the framework of the Act. In light of the available remedy, the HC declined to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction and disposed of the petitions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.