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 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
True owner of goods which have been seized - Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017 - While the Revenue Counsel would contend that the goods are not traceable to a bona-fide owner at the same time, in the facts of the present case, it does appear that the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 had been passed without consideration of the petitioner's claim to ownership over the goods in question. - there is evidence of the petitioner (claiming as owner) having deposited the amount of GST on 23.08.2021 which was the date fixed in the proceedings initiated under the notice dated 17.08.2021 issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. - Ex-parte order set aside - Matter restored back - HC
True owner of goods which have been seized - Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act, 2017 - While the Revenue Counsel would contend that the goods are not traceable to a bona-fide owner at the same time, in the facts of the present case, it does appear that the impugned order dated 24.08.2021 had been passed without consideration of the petitioner's claim to ownership over the goods in question. - there is evidence of the petitioner (claiming as owner) having deposited the amount of GST on 23.08.2021 which was the date fixed in the proceedings initiated under the notice dated 17.08.2021 issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. - Ex-parte order set aside - Matter restored back - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
