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 challenged recovery of differential Central Excise Duty by enhancing assessable value for bought-out items directly supplied to customers. Respondents failed to adjudicate show cause notice for six years, citing implementation of GST as reason. Court held justification unacceptable as Petitioner attended proceedings post-GST introduction. Respondents provided no evidence of department's non-functioning during GST implementation. Relegating Petitioner to attend delayed show cause notice would be unfair, unreasonable, and abuse of power. High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226, disposing of the petition.
Petitioner challenged recovery of differential Central Excise Duty by enhancing assessable value for bought-out items directly supplied to customers. Respondents failed to adjudicate show cause notice for six years, citing implementation of GST as reason. Court held justification unacceptable as Petitioner attended proceedings post-GST introduction. Respondents provided no evidence of department's non-functioning during GST implementation. Relegating Petitioner to attend delayed show cause notice would be unfair, unreasonable, and abuse of power. High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226, disposing of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.