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" ?
The High Court found the Tribunals Delhi Bench erred in dismissing multiple appeals for alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction instead of seeking transfer orders from the Tribunal President; the HC held that the Delhi Bench should have referred the matters for transfer and that summary dismissal imposed undue burdens on parties. The HC set aside the impugned dismissals, restored the appeals to the original Delhi Bench dockets for merits adjudication, and directed that any corresponding matters pending before the Lucknow Bench remain deferred until Delhi disposes them; Lucknow must close duplicate appeals after production of Delhis disposal orders.
The High Court found the Tribunals Delhi Bench erred in dismissing multiple appeals for alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction instead of seeking transfer orders from the Tribunal President; the HC held that the Delhi Bench should have referred the matters for transfer and that summary dismissal imposed undue burdens on parties. The HC set aside the impugned dismissals, restored the appeals to the original Delhi Bench dockets for merits adjudication, and directed that any corresponding matters pending before the Lucknow Bench remain deferred until Delhi disposes them; Lucknow must close duplicate appeals after production of Delhis disposal orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.