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 High Court addressed the validity of a Show Cause Notice regarding the calculation of service tax. It clarified that the judgment u/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd. pertains to Customs Act, not Finance Act 1994. The Court emphasized that the power to perform an act must be exercised by the same officer. The Additional Director General of DRI was deemed not a 'Proper Officer' for re-opening assessment. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of GST Intelligence. Extended limitation period issue requires factual assessment. The Court stated that interference at the initial stage of enquiry is not warranted unless jurisdictional error is evident. The petitioner was directed to respond to the show cause notices within four weeks. Petition dismissed, allowing the petitioner to present their case before the competent authority.
The High Court addressed the validity of a Show Cause Notice regarding the calculation of service tax. It clarified that the judgment u/s Canon India Pvt. Ltd. pertains to Customs Act, not Finance Act 1994. The Court emphasized that the power to perform an act must be exercised by the same officer. The Additional Director General of DRI was deemed not a 'Proper Officer' for re-opening assessment. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the show cause notice issued by the Directorate of GST Intelligence. Extended limitation period issue requires factual assessment. The Court stated that interference at the initial stage of enquiry is not warranted unless jurisdictional error is evident. The petitioner was directed to respond to the show cause notices within four weeks. Petition dismissed, allowing the petitioner to present their case before the competent authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
