Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1001 to 1020 of 95833 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 petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the show cause notice issued by the Respondents. The Court held that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) or its officials do not have jurisdiction to audit private companies like the Petitioner. Since the impugned show cause notice was not based on any audit undertaken by CAG/CERA, the Court did not delve into the issue of quashing the notice or prohibiting the Respondents from proceeding further. The Court found no infirmity in invoking the extended period of limitation as allegations of suppression or non-declaration were made in the show cause notice. The Court rejected the contention that the documents submitted or explanation offered by the Petitioner were not considered, stating that a show cause notice merely records a prima facie opinion and is not a judgment after adjudication.
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the show cause notice issued by the Respondents. The Court held that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) or its officials do not have jurisdiction to audit private companies like the Petitioner. Since the impugned show cause notice was not based on any audit undertaken by CAG/CERA, the Court did not delve into the issue of quashing the notice or prohibiting the Respondents from proceeding further. The Court found no infirmity in invoking the extended period of limitation as allegations of suppression or non-declaration were made in the show cause notice. The Court rejected the contention that the documents submitted or explanation offered by the Petitioner were not considered, stating that a show cause notice merely records a prima facie opinion and is not a judgment after adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
