Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Seized jewellery/gold is not liable to automatic release merely on expiry of 120 days under the first proviso to Section 132B(1)(i), because Section 132B(4) prescribes interest as the consequence of delayed action, indicating the timeline is directory rather than mandatory. Accordingly, continued retention beyond 120 days only triggers statutory interest liability and does not, by itself, confer an enforceable right to immediate release. Further, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to direct release where the AO is seized of the matter, since adequacy of explanation and evidence regarding nature and source of acquisition must first be assessed and liability determined by the AO; the remedy lies in seeking release (including against bank guarantee) before the AO. - HC
Seized jewellery/gold is not liable to automatic release merely on expiry of 120 days under the first proviso to Section 132B(1)(i), because Section 132B(4) prescribes interest as the consequence of delayed action, indicating the timeline is directory rather than mandatory. Accordingly, continued retention beyond 120 days only triggers statutory interest liability and does not, by itself, confer an enforceable right to immediate release. Further, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to direct release where the AO is seized of the matter, since adequacy of explanation and evidence regarding nature and source of acquisition must first be assessed and liability determined by the AO; the remedy lies in seeking release (including against bank guarantee) before the AO. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
