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.
161 to 180 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" ?
Provisional attachment of property under the PMLA was challenged on the ground that the predicate (scheduled offence) proceedings were not maintainable against certain persons and, therefore, the attached property ought to be released. It was held that where a principal accused in the scheduled offence remains neither quashed nor discharged/acquitted, property linked to the alleged proceeds of crime cannot be released on that basis and can continue to be attached while the predicate proceedings are pending. It was further held that attachment under the PMLA is not confined to persons named as accused in the scheduled offence and extends to any person involved in processes connected with proceeds of crime. The appeal was dismissed. - AT
Provisional attachment of property under the PMLA was challenged on the ground that the predicate (scheduled offence) proceedings were not maintainable against certain persons and, therefore, the attached property ought to be released. It was held that where a principal accused in the scheduled offence remains neither quashed nor discharged/acquitted, property linked to the alleged proceeds of crime cannot be released on that basis and can continue to be attached while the predicate proceedings are pending. It was further held that attachment under the PMLA is not confined to persons named as accused in the scheduled offence and extends to any person involved in processes connected with proceeds of crime. The appeal was dismissed. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.