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" ?
Rejection of an application to amend shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act was challenged on the ground that the order/communication was not signed by the officer who purportedly passed it and did not disclose the deciding officer's name and designation. The Court held that while communication may be issued through another official, the order must bear the deciding officer's name and designation (and preferably physical/digital signature) to ensure traceability, accountability, and authenticity; otherwise, the decision-maker cannot be identified and the order's genuineness may be doubted. The explanation was accepted for the present case, but a prospective direction was issued mandating compliance for all Customs matters. - HC
Rejection of an application to amend shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act was challenged on the ground that the order/communication was not signed by the officer who purportedly passed it and did not disclose the deciding officer's name and designation. The Court held that while communication may be issued through another official, the order must bear the deciding officer's name and designation (and preferably physical/digital signature) to ensure traceability, accountability, and authenticity; otherwise, the decision-maker cannot be identified and the order's genuineness may be doubted. The explanation was accepted for the present case, but a prospective direction was issued mandating compliance for all Customs matters. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
