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" ?
Denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations vitiated disciplinary proceedings because Regulation 17(4) creates a mandatory procedural protection; the inquiry relied on oral statements that the respondent was not permitted to test, and that breach rendered the revocation order unsustainable. The Tribunal correctly set aside the revocation for non compliance with Regulation 17(4) and breach of natural justice. Any findings about prescribed timelines were rendered immaterial where procedural fairness under Regulation 17(4) was violated, and the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring interference.
Denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations vitiated disciplinary proceedings because Regulation 17(4) creates a mandatory procedural protection; the inquiry relied on oral statements that the respondent was not permitted to test, and that breach rendered the revocation order unsustainable. The Tribunal correctly set aside the revocation for non compliance with Regulation 17(4) and breach of natural justice. Any findings about prescribed timelines were rendered immaterial where procedural fairness under Regulation 17(4) was violated, and the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring interference.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.