Ditemukan 495 data
Urut Berdasarkan
Register : 26-08-2016 — Putus : 22-11-2016 — Upload : 23-03-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 385 K/TUN/2016 Tanggal 22 Nopember 2016 — BUPATI TANGERANG VS H. SAADULLOH SYROCH;
111 — 66 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
111 — 66 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
Corruption also occurs when insteadof proceedings being determined on the basis of evidence and the law, theiroutcome is affected by improper influences, inducements pressures, threats,or interference, directly or indirectly, from any quarter or for any reasonincluding those arising from : a conflict of interest, nepotism, favountism tofriends, or a particular association or institution, consideration of postretirement placements, improper socialisation with members of the legalprofession, the executive
Putus : 14-09-2017 — Upload : 28-12-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1531 B/PK/PJK/2017 Tanggal 14 September 2017 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK VS BHLN KOMATSU LOGISTICS CORP.
67 — 34 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
67 — 34 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
It is often to distinguish between actvities which have a prepatory orauxilaiary character and those which have not.
Register : 10-04-2014 — Putus : 30-06-2014 — Upload : 30-04-2015
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 218 B/PK/PJK/2014 Tanggal 30 Juni 2014 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK VS PT. WIRAKARYA SAKTI;
49 — 33 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
49 — 33 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
Commentary on Article 11 Paragraph 17:any provision of this Convention conferring an exemptionfrom, or a reduction of tax shall not apply if more than 50 percent of such income is used to satisfy claims by such persons(including interest, royalties, development, advertising, initialand travel expenses, and depreciation of any kind of businessassets including those on immaterial goods and processes),8.2.
Register : 23-03-2021 — Putus : 28-06-2021 — Upload : 19-07-2021
Putusan PN BENGKALIS Nomor 167/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Bls Tanggal 28 Juni 2021 — Penuntut Umum:
IRVAN RAHMADANI PRAYOGO,S.H
Terdakwa:
NASRUDDIN Als NANTAN Bin USMAN .Alm.
66 — 42
IRVAN RAHMADANI PRAYOGO,S.H
Terdakwa:
NASRUDDIN Als NANTAN Bin USMAN .Alm.
66 — 42
Maka berlaku ketentuandalam hukum positif kita bahwa seseorang tidak bisa dipidana sebelum adaaturannya, sementara aturan saat ini diatur Sampai hukuman mati, dalam kasuskasus tertentu diatur maksimal hukuman mati karena saat ini masih berlaku dansah;Menimbang, bahwa PBB telah mengeluarkan sebuah panduan berjudulJaminan Perlindungan bagi Mereka yang Menghadapi Hukuman Mati(Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the DeathHalaman 35 dari 39 Putusan Nomor 167/Pid.Sus/2021/PN
Putus : 10-06-2015 — Upload : 10-03-2016
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 188/B/PK/PJK/2015 Tanggal 10 Juni 2015 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK VS PT. NUFARM INDONESIA
175 — 48 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
175 — 48 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
koreksi positif atas biaya asuransi sebesarRp1.387.848.870,00 yang tidak didukung oleh bukti ekstern seperti polisasuransi;Bahwa Pemohon Banding tidak setuju atas koreksi positif biaya asuransiRp1.387.848.870,00, dengan alasan Pemohon Banding memiliki polisasuransi, hanya saja polis asuransi yang Pemohon Banding miliki tersebut,atas nama global insurance, yang terdiri dari Nufarm Limited and/orsubsidiary and/or associated companies and/or subsidiary companiesthereof and/or jointventures (including those
Register : 21-07-2017 — Putus : 15-08-2017 — Upload : 01-11-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1517 B/PK/PJK/2017 Tanggal 15 Agustus 2017 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK VS PT. BHLN KOMATSU LOGISTICS CORP;
80 — 46 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
80 — 46 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
It is often to distinguish between actvities which have a prepatory orauxilaiary character and those which have not.
Register : 04-08-2017 — Putus : 14-09-2017 — Upload : 02-11-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1528 B/PK/PJK/2017 Tanggal 14 September 2017 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK VS PT. BHLN KOMATSU LOGISTICS CORP;
43 — 24 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
43 — 24 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
It is often to distinguish between actvities which have a prepatory orauxilaiary character and those which have not.
Putus : 30-06-2014 — Upload : 17-06-2015
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 220/B/PK/PJK/2014 Tanggal 30 Juni 2014 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK vs. PT. WIRAKARYA SAKTI
44 — 28 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
44 — 28 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
Commentary on Article 11 Paragraph 17any provision of this Convention conferring an exemptionfrom, or a reduction of tax shall not apply if more than 50 percent of such income is used to satisfy claims by such persons(including interest, royalties, development, advertising, initialand travel expenses, and depreciation of any kind of businessassets including those on immaterial goods and processes) ,Dalam buku berjudul "Beneficial Ownership of Royalties in BilateralTax Treaties" yang ditulis oleh
Register : 21-07-2017 — Putus : 15-08-2017 — Upload : 01-11-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1519 B/PK/PJK/2017 Tanggal 15 Agustus 2017 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK VS PT. BHLN KOMATSU LOGISTICS CORP;
74 — 62 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
74 — 62 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
It is often to distinguish between actvities which have a prepatory orauxilaiary character and those which have not.
Putus : 01-11-2017 — Upload : 28-12-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1897/B/PK/PJK/2017 Tanggal 1 Nopember 2017 — PT AVERY DENNISON PACKAGING INDONESIA VS DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK
102 — 85 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
102 — 85 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
In anarrow range of such cases, an intragroup activity may be performed relatingto group members even though those group members do not need theactivity (and would not be willing to pay for it were they independententerprises). Such an activity would be one that a group member (usually theparent company or a regional holding company) performs solely because ofits ownership interest in one or more other group members, i.e. in its capacityas shareholder.
Putus : 11-10-2017 — Upload : 28-12-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 1634/B/PK/PJK/2017 Tanggal 11 Oktober 2017 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK VS PT. INDOKOMAS BUANA PERKASA
176 — 115 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
176 — 115 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
terhadapWajib Pajak yang Mempunyai Hubungan Istimewa yang merupakanperaturan pelaksanaan dari Pasal 18 Ayat (8) UU PPh;Bahwa referensi lain mengenai definisi wajar (arms length principle)dapat ditemukan pada OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, pada Paragraf1.6 yang berbunyi:"where conditions ore made or imposed between the two (associated)enterprises in their commercial or financial relations which differ fromthose which would be made between independent enterprises, then anyprofits which would, but for those
conditions, have accrued to one of theHalaman 34 dari 87 halaman Putusan Nomor 1634/B/PK/PJK/2017enterprises, but, by reason of those conditions, have no so accrued, maybe included in the profits of that enterprise and taxed accordingly;Bahwa jika suatu kondisi yang terjadi antara pihak yang terafiliasiberbeda dengan kondisi yang terjadi antara pihakpihak yangindependent, kemudian suatu laba yang seharusnya dilaporkan di salahsatu perusahaan tertentu tetapi karena kondisi tersebut terjadi antarapihakpihak
Putus : 27-01-2011 — Upload : 19-12-2011
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 136/B/PK/PJK/2007 Tanggal 27 Januari 2011 — BUT ABN AMRO BANK N.V. (ABN) vs DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK,
58 — 34 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
58 — 34 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
So long as the various branchesare part of the same legal entity which has been registered wth theComptroller, no GST is to be charged on those supplies."Terjemahannya:"Karena pengertian biasa dari kata 'memasok' adalah untukmenyediakan atau melayani suatu transaksi yang melibatkan pasokanmenyiratkan bahwa ada dua pihak dalam transaksi tersebut.
Putus : 12-05-2015 — Upload : 27-11-2015
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 234 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2015 Tanggal 12 Mei 2015 — PT. KALIMANTAN STEEL VS 1. PT. INDO METAL TECH PRODUCTS, DK
349 — 208 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
349 — 208 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
You must consider the nature and kindof customer who would be likely to buy those goods or services.In fact, you must consider all the surrounding circumstances; and youmust consider what is likely to happen if each of these trade marks isused in a normal way as a trade mark for the goods or services of therespective owners of the marks.
Register : 23-03-2021 — Putus : 28-06-2021 — Upload : 19-07-2021
Putusan PN BENGKALIS Nomor 168/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Bls Tanggal 28 Juni 2021 — Penuntut Umum:
IRVAN RAHMADANI PRAYOGO,S.H
Terdakwa:
1.ABDULLAH Als DUL Bin ATAN YUNUS .Alm.
2.ANDIKA Als ANDIK Bin JUNAIDI.
74 — 44
IRVAN RAHMADANI PRAYOGO,S.H
Terdakwa:
1.ABDULLAH Als DUL Bin ATAN YUNUS .Alm.
2.ANDIKA Als ANDIK Bin JUNAIDI.
74 — 44
Maka berlaku ketentuandalam hukum positif kita bahwa seseorang tidak bisa dipidana sebelum adaaturannya, sementara aturan saat ini diatur Sampai hukuman mati, dalam kasuskasus tertentu diatur maksimal hukuman mati karena saat ini masih berlaku dansah;Menimbang, bahwa PBB telah mengeluarkan sebuah panduan berjudulJaminan Perlindungan bagi Mereka yang Menghadapi Hukuman Mati(Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the DeathPenalty) melalui Resolusi Dewan Ekonomi Sosial PBB
Register : 18-09-2013 — Putus : 18-12-2013 — Upload : 27-11-2019
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 669 B/PK/PJK/2013 Tanggal 18 Desember 2013 — DIREKTUR JENDERAL PAJAK VS PT. MURNI TIMBER;
126 — 80 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
126 — 80 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
Commentary on Article 11 Paragraph 17:any provision of this Convention conferring an exemption from, or areduction of tax shall not apply if more than 50 per cent of suchincome is used to satisfy claims by such persons (including interest,royalties, development, advertising, initial and travel expenses, anddepreciation of any kind of business assets including those onimmaterial goods and processes),Halaman 23 dari 40 halaman. Putusan Nomor 669/B/PK/PJK/20137. 2.
Putus : 13-02-2014 — Upload : 19-12-2014
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 454 K/TUN/2013 Tanggal 13 Februari 2014 — BUPATI TANGERANG vs ACENG KODIR
47 — 28 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
47 — 28 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
Examples of criminal corrupt conductare : Bribery, Fraud, Utilisation of public resources for private gain,Deliberate loss of court records and Deliberate alteration of court records.Corruption also occurs when instead of proceedings being determined onthe basis of evidence and the law, their outcome is affected by improperinfluences, inducements pressures, threats, or interference, directly orindirectly, from any quarter or for any reason including those arising from :a conflict of interest, nepotism
Putus : 08-02-2017 — Upload : 02-11-2017
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 3715 K/Pdt/2016 Tanggal 8 Februari 2017 — ADE CHAERANI NUR SAFITRI VS PERSEROAN TERBATAS (PT) BALI RESORT & LEISURE (PT
BALI RESORT & LEISURE COMPANY
145 — 70 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
145 — 70 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
Agreement) tanggal 30April 2003, knususnya 8.9, yaitu:The Lessee shall be solely responsible to obtain any and all licenses, permits,approvals and validations in the name off the Lessee for for the operation of theHotel, including all permits and licenses required for the management andoperation of the Premises and all necessary governmental approvals andcertificates for the sales and services of all beverages authonzed by applicablelaws and shall be responsible for all extension or renewal of those
Putus : 29-03-2016 — Upload : 08-08-2016
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 112 K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2016 Tanggal 29 Maret 2016 — SAN ANTONIO SENJAYA VS PT. GERBANG CAHAYA UTAMA
138 — 77 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
138 — 77 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
dengan Pasal 15 agreement on traderelated aspects of intelectual property rights (selanjutnya disebut trips)sebagaimana terdapat dalam annex ic dari convention establishing theworld intellectual property organization sebagaimana juga telah diratifikasioleh Indonesia melalui UndangUndang Nomor 7 tahun 1994 tentangpengesahan agreement establishing the world organizationmengemukakan bahwa :"any sign or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goodsor services of one undertaking from those
Putus : 18-05-2016 — Upload : 30-09-2016
Putusan MAHKAMAH AGUNG Nomor 26 PK/Pdt.Sus-Arbt/2016 Tanggal 18 Mei 2016 — 1. ASTRO NUSANTARA INTERNATIONAL B.V, DKK VS 1. PT AYUNDA PRIMA MITRA, DKK
1370 — 1816 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
1370 — 1816 — Berkekuatan Hukum Tetap
Rule 31.1 provides that the tribunal shall have the authority to order in itsaward that all or part of the legal or other costs of a party (apart form thecosts of the arbitration) be paid by the other party As before the Tribunalconsiders that it should assess those costs now than refer the matter to theRegistrar for taxation;18. The Claimants claim legal cost of 872,250 and S$3,522,522 anddisbursments of 32,224, S$63, 228 and S$35, 547 as particularised inSections 1 and 3 of Annex V.
Author : Ahmad Fikri Assegaf; Elijana Tanjah;
Grosse Akta 4566 — 4447
- Alasan memilih topik grosse akte sebagai salah satu pokok bahasan Restatement adalah terdapatnya kesimpangsiuran terkait grosse akte. Grosse akte mempunyai judul Demi Ketuhanan Berdasarkan Ketuhanan Yang Maha Esa seperti irah-irah putusan pengadilan ... [Selengkapnya]
names are written under the document are actually theones who signed it,e that it was signed on the specified date (thus that an earlier date was not filled inafterwards).The presence of an authentic instrument also guarantees that the signatoriesunderstood why they signed it, because a notary public is required to ascertain thatthe signatories understood the purpose of the document.The law requires an authentic instrument for certain statements and contracts;a private instrument is invalid for those
Those statements should not result in a legal consequence which the parties are notat liberty to determine. Imperative evidentiary value relates only to that which theinstrument is intended to prove to the other party. A unilateral statement about afact is nevertheless within the scope of the provision."
thosewho (under substantive law) are to be considered as parties to the instrument, butalso for the party or parties against whom the party who made the statement in theinstrument must be considered to have intended the instrument to serve as evidence.The Hoge Raad, however, ruled that the content and purport of Art. 157 CCP andthe requirements of legal transactions entail that a private instrument constitutesimperative evidence only with respect to the other party (and its assignees), in otherwords those
who are designated as such in the instrument or those to whom the partywho signed the instrument gave an undertaking according to its text.