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 allowed the petition and set aside the impugned attachment notice against the petitioner, holding that liability of a deceased partner's legal representative under s.159 is confined to the value of the estate inherited and cannot exceed inherited assets. The court found the respondent had mechanically attached the petitioner's bank account containing only Rs. 60,002 and there was no evidence the petitioner had inherited assets of partners of the defaulting firm; therefore the attachment was unlawful. The respondents remain at liberty to pursue recovery against the partnership firm, its partners and their legal heirs in accordance with s.159 read with s.189 of the 1961 Act.
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned attachment notice against the petitioner, holding that liability of a deceased partner's legal representative under s.159 is confined to the value of the estate inherited and cannot exceed inherited assets. The court found the respondent had mechanically attached the petitioner's bank account containing only Rs. 60,002 and there was no evidence the petitioner had inherited assets of partners of the defaulting firm; therefore the attachment was unlawful. The respondents remain at liberty to pursue recovery against the partnership firm, its partners and their legal heirs in accordance with s.159 read with s.189 of the 1961 Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
