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 held that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Appellant-Board's Adjudicating Officer was validly founded, clarifying that under Rule 5(1) it is the AO who must first inquire into and determine whether a violation under Section 15-I, including Section 15A(b), has occurred. The Single Judge's view that the notice was issued solely for imposition of penalty without prior formation of opinion was found erroneous and set aside. Concurrently, the HC affirmed that the PIT Regulations do not require a prior order under Regulation 14 or exhaustion of remedial measures thereunder as a condition precedent to invoking adjudicatory powers under Chapter VI-A of the SEBI Act.
The HC held that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Appellant-Board's Adjudicating Officer was validly founded, clarifying that under Rule 5(1) it is the AO who must first inquire into and determine whether a violation under Section 15-I, including Section 15A(b), has occurred. The Single Judge's view that the notice was issued solely for imposition of penalty without prior formation of opinion was found erroneous and set aside. Concurrently, the HC affirmed that the PIT Regulations do not require a prior order under Regulation 14 or exhaustion of remedial measures thereunder as a condition precedent to invoking adjudicatory powers under Chapter VI-A of the SEBI Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
