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 dismissed the Revenue's petition challenging the order of the Single Judge. The court held that u/s 18(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, the Respondent's refund claims for Input Tax Credit on zero-rated sales were filed beyond the prescribed 180-day period from the date of accrual of such Input Tax Credit. However, the court emphasized that export incentives in the form of refund of Input Tax Credit should not be denied as exports bring precious foreign exchange to the country. The statutory restrictions were put in place only after 2010 through amendments to Section 18(3) of the Act and Rule 11(2) of the Rules. Therefore, the Respondent's refund claims filed prior to the amendments were valid.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's petition challenging the order of the Single Judge. The court held that u/s 18(3) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006, and Rule 11(2) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007, the Respondent's refund claims for Input Tax Credit on zero-rated sales were filed beyond the prescribed 180-day period from the date of accrual of such Input Tax Credit. However, the court emphasized that export incentives in the form of refund of Input Tax Credit should not be denied as exports bring precious foreign exchange to the country. The statutory restrictions were put in place only after 2010 through amendments to Section 18(3) of the Act and Rule 11(2) of the Rules. Therefore, the Respondent's refund claims filed prior to the amendments were valid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
