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 quashed refund rejection orders for lack of opportunity for personal hearing as mandated by Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017, violating principles of natural justice. The show cause notices allowed 15 days for response, which petitioner complied with, but hearing was allegedly held before reply. No clear evidence of hearing intimation existed. Rule 92(3) requires reasonable opportunity for hearing after reply to show cause notice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of refund application, upholding principles of fair play.
The High Court quashed refund rejection orders for lack of opportunity for personal hearing as mandated by Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017, violating principles of natural justice. The show cause notices allowed 15 days for response, which petitioner complied with, but hearing was allegedly held before reply. No clear evidence of hearing intimation existed. Rule 92(3) requires reasonable opportunity for hearing after reply to show cause notice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration of refund application, upholding principles of fair play.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
