Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
An application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A could not be rejected solely because input tax credit had been availed from non-existing taxpayers, cancelled dealers, or return defaulters. The High Court held that, since an assessment order had been issued and no appellate order existed, the application fell within clause (b) of section 128A(1) and related to a covered period. If the alleged ITC irregularity was the real basis, proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 74; the record showed they were initiated under section 73. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration.
An application for waiver of interest and penalty under section 128A could not be rejected solely because input tax credit had been availed from non-existing taxpayers, cancelled dealers, or return defaulters. The High Court held that, since an assessment order had been issued and no appellate order existed, the application fell within clause (b) of section 128A(1) and related to a covered period. If the alleged ITC irregularity was the real basis, proceedings ought to have been initiated under section 74; the record showed they were initiated under section 73. The rejection was therefore unsustainable, the order was set aside, and the waiver application was remanded for fresh consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
