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" ?
Where a cheque bears material alterations (amount/date), such change falls within Section 87 and will void the instrument as against a party who did not consent; if alterations were made by the drawer with intent to prevent payment, dishonour will attract liability under Section 138, but if made by the payee for undue benefit the criminal liability may not follow. Determination of who made the alteration is a question of fact for trial and cannot be decided at this stage; petitioner's challenge is therefore dismissed without prejudice to raising these factual/contention issues before the trial court. - HC
Where a cheque bears material alterations (amount/date), such change falls within Section 87 and will void the instrument as against a party who did not consent; if alterations were made by the drawer with intent to prevent payment, dishonour will attract liability under Section 138, but if made by the payee for undue benefit the criminal liability may not follow. Determination of who made the alteration is a question of fact for trial and cannot be decided at this stage; petitioner's challenge is therefore dismissed without prejudice to raising these factual/contention issues before the trial court. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
