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 petition under Article 226, refusing mandamus relief to restrain the 2nd respondent (CESTAT) from insisting on the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129-E(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that Section 129-E requires deposit of 7.5% of the duty/penalty claimed (capped at Rs.10 crore) before entertaining an appeal and declined to exercise discretionary waiver of the pre-deposit on the facts, noting the petitioner's established commercial status and lack of insolvency. Technical disputes as to classification/exemption (crude palmolein v. crude palm oil) were held to be matters for statutory authorities and experts, not for the HC to determine.
The HC dismissed the petition under Article 226, refusing mandamus relief to restrain the 2nd respondent (CESTAT) from insisting on the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129-E(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that Section 129-E requires deposit of 7.5% of the duty/penalty claimed (capped at Rs.10 crore) before entertaining an appeal and declined to exercise discretionary waiver of the pre-deposit on the facts, noting the petitioner's established commercial status and lack of insolvency. Technical disputes as to classification/exemption (crude palmolein v. crude palm oil) were held to be matters for statutory authorities and experts, not for the HC to determine.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
