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 applicability of the Notification dated 13.09.2012 in the present case, where the goods were seized in 2008-2009, was examined. As per the Notification, the transporter must carry duly signed copies of documents like lorry challan, goods receipt, invoice, etc. during movement. However, the revisionist, registered with the Ministry of Railways, was bound to keep details of consignors and consignees as per a 2006 letter. When the show-cause notice was issued before the assessment order dated 01.09.2009, the 2012 Notification did not exist. Hence, the case must be examined under the provisions applicable on 01.09.2009. Section 49(3), regarding the definition of "dealer" and non-production of title documents, was deleted by the 2012 Notifications with effect from 01.03.2012. The Supreme Court has considered the applicability of these provisions in various judgments. After the 2012 Notifications, the State established checkposts, but no checking was done during the transport of the revisionist's goods by rail. If no checking occurred during transportation, the revisionist, being a transporter, cannot be liable to pay tax without evidence of consignors and consignees. The High Court set aside the order.
The applicability of the Notification dated 13.09.2012 in the present case, where the goods were seized in 2008-2009, was examined. As per the Notification, the transporter must carry duly signed copies of documents like lorry challan, goods receipt, invoice, etc. during movement. However, the revisionist, registered with the Ministry of Railways, was bound to keep details of consignors and consignees as per a 2006 letter. When the show-cause notice was issued before the assessment order dated 01.09.2009, the 2012 Notification did not exist. Hence, the case must be examined under the provisions applicable on 01.09.2009. Section 49(3), regarding the definition of "dealer" and non-production of title documents, was deleted by the 2012 Notifications with effect from 01.03.2012. The Supreme Court has considered the applicability of these provisions in various judgments. After the 2012 Notifications, the State established checkposts, but no checking was done during the transport of the revisionist's goods by rail. If no checking occurred during transportation, the revisionist, being a transporter, cannot be liable to pay tax without evidence of consignors and consignees. The High Court set aside the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
