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" ?
Validity of assessment orders - The High court examined the timeline of events and observed that the petitioner responded to the show cause notice in January 2024. However, the respondent authority did not afford a personal hearing to the petitioner as required by subsection (4) of Section 75 of the relevant GST enactments. Since the statutory prescription for a personal hearing was not followed, the court concluded that the impugned orders were flawed. Consequently, the court set aside the orders and directed the respondent to reconsider the matters, providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing. The court further nullified the recovery notice associated with the impugned orders and clarified that the stay of recovery remained in effect for pending appellate proceedings.
Validity of assessment orders - The High court examined the timeline of events and observed that the petitioner responded to the show cause notice in January 2024. However, the respondent authority did not afford a personal hearing to the petitioner as required by subsection (4) of Section 75 of the relevant GST enactments. Since the statutory prescription for a personal hearing was not followed, the court concluded that the impugned orders were flawed. Consequently, the court set aside the orders and directed the respondent to reconsider the matters, providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing. The court further nullified the recovery notice associated with the impugned orders and clarified that the stay of recovery remained in effect for pending appellate proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
