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 RBI's permission for allotment of shares to a non-resident against import of second-hand capital goods was legally infirm, including on an alleged FERA violation, was the dominant issue. The court held that the investment involved direct payment by the non-resident for imported machinery, with no foreign-exchange outflow by the company, and was expressly permissible on a non-repatriable basis under the applicable government directive; hence RBI's approval was valid. It further held that FERA had been repealed prior to the approval and, under FEMA, no RBI permission was required for such allotment; the "sunset" contention therefore did not arise. The intra-court appeal was dismissed - HC
Whether RBI's permission for allotment of shares to a non-resident against import of second-hand capital goods was legally infirm, including on an alleged FERA violation, was the dominant issue. The court held that the investment involved direct payment by the non-resident for imported machinery, with no foreign-exchange outflow by the company, and was expressly permissible on a non-repatriable basis under the applicable government directive; hence RBI's approval was valid. It further held that FERA had been repealed prior to the approval and, under FEMA, no RBI permission was required for such allotment; the "sunset" contention therefore did not arise. The intra-court appeal was dismissed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.