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 appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment, holding that imposition of interest/penalty by the regulator was without jurisdiction in the absence of a valid demand notice. The court found that Regulation 3(Form I) and Regulation 5 of the 2011 Regulations make issuance of a demand notice a statutory precondition to any accrual of interest; interest accrues only upon failure to pay within the period specified in such notice. The regulator's contention that interest automatically crystallises on expiry of the penalty period was rejected as unsupported by the statutory scheme and contrary to the principle of legality. No restitutionary or pari materia basis exists to retroactively trigger interest; appeal dismissed.
The HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment, holding that imposition of interest/penalty by the regulator was without jurisdiction in the absence of a valid demand notice. The court found that Regulation 3(Form I) and Regulation 5 of the 2011 Regulations make issuance of a demand notice a statutory precondition to any accrual of interest; interest accrues only upon failure to pay within the period specified in such notice. The regulator's contention that interest automatically crystallises on expiry of the penalty period was rejected as unsupported by the statutory scheme and contrary to the principle of legality. No restitutionary or pari materia basis exists to retroactively trigger interest; appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.