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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
Provisional attachment of a bank account under section 83 is a drastic power that can be exercised only on a prior, valid formation of opinion based on tangible material and after compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards. The pre-attachment communication and attachment order were vague, issued without a show cause notice, and disclosed no proper material or reasoning; the attachment therefore breached the petitioner's civil rights and was unlawful. The High Court quashed the attachment orders but permitted the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law if tangible material exists. Finding a gross abuse of power and high-handed conduct causing serious civil consequences, the Court also imposed personal costs on the concerned officer.
Provisional attachment of a bank account under section 83 is a drastic power that can be exercised only on a prior, valid formation of opinion based on tangible material and after compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards. The pre-attachment communication and attachment order were vague, issued without a show cause notice, and disclosed no proper material or reasoning; the attachment therefore breached the petitioner's civil rights and was unlawful. The High Court quashed the attachment orders but permitted the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law if tangible material exists. Finding a gross abuse of power and high-handed conduct causing serious civil consequences, the Court also imposed personal costs on the concerned officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
