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" ?
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery of a refund granted twice, leading to the grant of refund again by suppressing the fact of suo moto availment of credit. The issue revolved around the levy of penalty u/s 11AC of the Act, 1944, which requires the presence of mens rea. The court held that under Section 11AC, penalty is imposed when there is an intention to evade duty payment, such as through fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. In this case, the appellant's mens rea was established by their conduct of obtaining the refund twice while concealing the credit availment. The court found no errors or perversity in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court addressed a case involving the recovery of a refund granted twice, leading to the grant of refund again by suppressing the fact of suo moto availment of credit. The issue revolved around the levy of penalty u/s 11AC of the Act, 1944, which requires the presence of mens rea. The court held that under Section 11AC, penalty is imposed when there is an intention to evade duty payment, such as through fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. In this case, the appellant's mens rea was established by their conduct of obtaining the refund twice while concealing the credit availment. The court found no errors or perversity in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
