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" ?
Petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- under Settlement Scheme for 2010-2011, against which Respondents recovered Rs. 19,16,74,501/-, resulting in excess collection of Rs. 10,69,89,606/-. Respondents adjusted Petitioner's refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for 2011-2012 against non-existent demand for 2010-2011, without authority. Defect notice u/s 11 of Settlement Scheme was contrary to law as Petitioner made excess payment, not shortfall. Section 18 of Settlement Scheme, prohibiting refund, is inapplicable as Petitioner seeks refund of 2011-2012, not amount paid under Settlement Scheme. HC directed Respondents to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with 6% interest from 1st June 2019 till payment date u/s 52 read with Rule 88 of MVAT Rules.
Petitioner paid Rs. 8,46,84,821/- under Settlement Scheme for 2010-2011, against which Respondents recovered Rs. 19,16,74,501/-, resulting in excess collection of Rs. 10,69,89,606/-. Respondents adjusted Petitioner's refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for 2011-2012 against non-existent demand for 2010-2011, without authority. Defect notice u/s 11 of Settlement Scheme was contrary to law as Petitioner made excess payment, not shortfall. Section 18 of Settlement Scheme, prohibiting refund, is inapplicable as Petitioner seeks refund of 2011-2012, not amount paid under Settlement Scheme. HC directed Respondents to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with 6% interest from 1st June 2019 till payment date u/s 52 read with Rule 88 of MVAT Rules.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
