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 held that once a proper officer initiates proceedings on a subject matter under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) or the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (HGST Act), no other proper officer can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The power exercised by the proper officer u/ss 69, 70, 71, and 72 of the CGST Act is judicial, and every inquiry is deemed a judicial proceeding. Issuance of a show cause notice marks the commencement of legal proceedings. The CGST Act and HGST Act do not provide for transferring proceedings from one proper officer to another. The State Tax Officer who initiated proceedings is empowered to summon evidence and documents. The availability of information about fraudulent ITC availed by related firms does not justify transferring proceedings to another authority. Independent action against other firms does not impede proceedings against the firm under investigation. New information can be shared with the investigating authority. The Excise & Taxation Officer lacked jurisdiction to transfer proceedings to the Central Government. The proceedings initiated u/s 74(1) of the HGST Act against the petitioner company shall continue with the Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-proper officer, who shall examine all aspects revealed relating to tax evasion or ITC.
The High Court held that once a proper officer initiates proceedings on a subject matter under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) or the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (HGST Act), no other proper officer can initiate proceedings on the same subject matter. The power exercised by the proper officer u/ss 69, 70, 71, and 72 of the CGST Act is judicial, and every inquiry is deemed a judicial proceeding. Issuance of a show cause notice marks the commencement of legal proceedings. The CGST Act and HGST Act do not provide for transferring proceedings from one proper officer to another. The State Tax Officer who initiated proceedings is empowered to summon evidence and documents. The availability of information about fraudulent ITC availed by related firms does not justify transferring proceedings to another authority. Independent action against other firms does not impede proceedings against the firm under investigation. New information can be shared with the investigating authority. The Excise & Taxation Officer lacked jurisdiction to transfer proceedings to the Central Government. The proceedings initiated u/s 74(1) of the HGST Act against the petitioner company shall continue with the Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-proper officer, who shall examine all aspects revealed relating to tax evasion or ITC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.