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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Whether the adjudicating authority could permit amendment of the "date of default" in a s.7 application from a date falling within the s.10A prohibited period to an earlier date was the dominant issue. The tribunal held that an amendment is permissible where the underlying pleadings and contemporaneous documents already disclose the earlier default and the later date merely reflected a continuing default based on post-dated cheques; such amendment does not amount to impermissible withdrawal of an admission but a clarification consistent with record, and s.10A bars only applications founded on defaults occurring within the protected period. Accordingly, the order allowing amendment was upheld and the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT
Whether the adjudicating authority could permit amendment of the "date of default" in a s.7 application from a date falling within the s.10A prohibited period to an earlier date was the dominant issue. The tribunal held that an amendment is permissible where the underlying pleadings and contemporaneous documents already disclose the earlier default and the later date merely reflected a continuing default based on post-dated cheques; such amendment does not amount to impermissible withdrawal of an admission but a clarification consistent with record, and s.10A bars only applications founded on defaults occurring within the protected period. Accordingly, the order allowing amendment was upheld and the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.