Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Passenger baggage re-export requires true declaration and cannot be granted indirectly through discretionary redemption of undeclared prohibited goods...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96046 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court found that the factual position was not in dispute. The authority made assessments for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on an intelligence report. However, for the period from October 2017 to March 2018, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order after providing three opportunities to the petitioner, who did not participate in the proceedings. The petitioner's request letter to the authority to consider the matter cannot be construed as participation. The petitioner should have informed the authority about the overlapping amount, which the authority could have considered. The court held that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in law and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for rehearing and passing an appropriate order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
The court found that the factual position was not in dispute. The authority made assessments for the financial years 2017-18 and 2018-19 based on an intelligence report. However, for the period from October 2017 to March 2018, the Adjudicating Authority passed an order after providing three opportunities to the petitioner, who did not participate in the proceedings. The petitioner's request letter to the authority to consider the matter cannot be construed as participation. The petitioner should have informed the authority about the overlapping amount, which the authority could have considered. The court held that the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Annexure-5 cannot be sustained in law and quashed it. The matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority for rehearing and passing an appropriate order in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
