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 whether a slump sale under the BTA would be taxable as a sale of goods u/s the MVAT Act. The reviewing authority exceeded its jurisdiction by dissecting the BTA and copying reasoning from a service tax demand notice. The intangible assets in Schedule 3.3 of the BTA could not be considered as sale of goods, and taxing them was a flawed approach. The reviewing authority misinterpreted the BTA and the MVAT Act, leading to an illegal order. The Court held that the slump sale did not amount to sale of goods u/s the MVAT Act, and set aside the impugned order. The petition was allowed.
The High Court considered whether a slump sale under the BTA would be taxable as a sale of goods u/s the MVAT Act. The reviewing authority exceeded its jurisdiction by dissecting the BTA and copying reasoning from a service tax demand notice. The intangible assets in Schedule 3.3 of the BTA could not be considered as sale of goods, and taxing them was a flawed approach. The reviewing authority misinterpreted the BTA and the MVAT Act, leading to an illegal order. The Court held that the slump sale did not amount to sale of goods u/s the MVAT Act, and set aside the impugned order. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.