Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
A High Court held that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the Act, 2017 cannot be initiated merely for an alleged violation of Section 35 without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. Because the show cause notice was issued without satisfying that jurisdictional requirement, it was held to be without jurisdiction. Interference at the notice stage was therefore justified, and the show cause notice and consequential confiscation order were quashed, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
A High Court held that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 read with Section 122 of the Act, 2017 cannot be initiated merely for an alleged violation of Section 35 without prior determination of tax liability under Sections 73 or 74. Because the show cause notice was issued without satisfying that jurisdictional requirement, it was held to be without jurisdiction. Interference at the notice stage was therefore justified, and the show cause notice and consequential confiscation order were quashed, with liberty to the department to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.