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" ?
HC dismissed the writ petitions filed by A and others challenging the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under Section 5(1) PMLA. HC held that transfer of investigation to SFIO under Section 212(2) of the 2013 Act does not bar or interdict parallel proceedings under PMLA, as that provision is confined to offences "under this Act" and the two statutes address distinct offences and objectives. HC found that the D/AO possessed adequate, cogent material to form the requisite "reason to believe" for attachment, and that the belief was neither arbitrary nor speculative. Observing that PMLA is a self-contained code with a comprehensive appellate mechanism, HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left all merits to be agitated before the Appellate Tribunal.
HC dismissed the writ petitions filed by A and others challenging the Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) issued under Section 5(1) PMLA. HC held that transfer of investigation to SFIO under Section 212(2) of the 2013 Act does not bar or interdict parallel proceedings under PMLA, as that provision is confined to offences "under this Act" and the two statutes address distinct offences and objectives. HC found that the D/AO possessed adequate, cogent material to form the requisite "reason to believe" for attachment, and that the belief was neither arbitrary nor speculative. Observing that PMLA is a self-contained code with a comprehensive appellate mechanism, HC declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and left all merits to be agitated before the Appellate Tribunal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
