Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court upheld the levy of tax and penalty on the petitioner for fraudulent claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s 16 of the GST Act. The petitioner claimed ITC based on non-existent firms, later revealed by investigation. The court held that mere registration of firms does not entitle ITC if no actual supplies were made. Fraud vitiates proceedings, allowing authorities to reclaim wrongly availed benefits. The court found no illegality in the orders and dismissed the petition.
The High Court upheld the levy of tax and penalty on the petitioner for fraudulent claim of Input Tax Credit (ITC) u/s 16 of the GST Act. The petitioner claimed ITC based on non-existent firms, later revealed by investigation. The court held that mere registration of firms does not entitle ITC if no actual supplies were made. Fraud vitiates proceedings, allowing authorities to reclaim wrongly availed benefits. The court found no illegality in the orders and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.