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" ?
Refusal to rectify the assessment order passed under Rule 142 (5) of the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017 - denial of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) - The High Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting that the assessing authority had failed to consider relevant legal precedents and a binding Circular issued by the CBIC. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 30.01.2024 and directed the assessing authority to reconsider the matter and issue a fresh reasoned order by a specified deadline. Pending the fresh order, the High Court ordered the disputed demand of tax and penalty to remain in abeyance.
Refusal to rectify the assessment order passed under Rule 142 (5) of the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017 - denial of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) - The High Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments, noting that the assessing authority had failed to consider relevant legal precedents and a binding Circular issued by the CBIC. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 30.01.2024 and directed the assessing authority to reconsider the matter and issue a fresh reasoned order by a specified deadline. Pending the fresh order, the High Court ordered the disputed demand of tax and penalty to remain in abeyance.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.