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" ?
Statutory limits on executive review of vested land orders are reaffirmed: conferral of Civil Court powers does not automatically grant an unrestricted review jurisdiction to executive quasi judicial officers, and statutes barring reopening of concluded vesting determinations preclude such reviews. The 2008 review purporting to set aside the 1971 vesting order was therefore without jurisdiction and void; the Tribunal's quashing of that review was properly restored. Separately, the review failed the narrow Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC tests (no newly discovered evidence shown, no mistake apparent on the record, and no analogous sufficient reason), so the 1971 vesting order remains operative.
Statutory limits on executive review of vested land orders are reaffirmed: conferral of Civil Court powers does not automatically grant an unrestricted review jurisdiction to executive quasi judicial officers, and statutes barring reopening of concluded vesting determinations preclude such reviews. The 2008 review purporting to set aside the 1971 vesting order was therefore without jurisdiction and void; the Tribunal's quashing of that review was properly restored. Separately, the review failed the narrow Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC tests (no newly discovered evidence shown, no mistake apparent on the record, and no analogous sufficient reason), so the 1971 vesting order remains operative.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.