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" ?
Blocking the input tax credit against the petitioners - The High Court emphasizes that Rule 86(A) allows restricting debit from the electronic credit ledger for an amount equivalent to fraudulently availed credit. Rule 86(A) doesn't authorize negative balance insertion in the ledger; it only permits blocking of the credit available. The Court rules that blocking ITC effectively deprives the petitioner of the right to discharge liabilities. The respondents should have initiated recovery proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 if the petitioner had fraudulently availed ITC. The action of the respondents is deemed unsustainable as it violates Rule 86(A) and previous court decisions. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to recall the order of blockage immediately.
Blocking the input tax credit against the petitioners - The High Court emphasizes that Rule 86(A) allows restricting debit from the electronic credit ledger for an amount equivalent to fraudulently availed credit. Rule 86(A) doesn't authorize negative balance insertion in the ledger; it only permits blocking of the credit available. The Court rules that blocking ITC effectively deprives the petitioner of the right to discharge liabilities. The respondents should have initiated recovery proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 if the petitioner had fraudulently availed ITC. The action of the respondents is deemed unsustainable as it violates Rule 86(A) and previous court decisions. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to recall the order of blockage immediately.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
