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 considered the validity of a garnishee order due to a mismatch between the supplier's GSTR 1 statement and the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns. The court found that the petitioner was not given a chance to be heard before the order was issued. As the tax demand was already met from the petitioner's bank account, the revenue interest was secured. The court held that the petitioner should be allowed to contest the tax demand and quashed the impugned order dated 15.09.2023. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, and the petition was disposed of by way of remand.
The High Court considered the validity of a garnishee order due to a mismatch between the supplier's GSTR 1 statement and the petitioner's GSTR 3B returns. The court found that the petitioner was not given a chance to be heard before the order was issued. As the tax demand was already met from the petitioner's bank account, the revenue interest was secured. The court held that the petitioner should be allowed to contest the tax demand and quashed the impugned order dated 15.09.2023. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, and the petition was disposed of by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
