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" ?
HC upheld revenue's appeal regarding disallowance of input tax credit and penalty imposition under KVAT Act. The respondent failed to substantiate genuine purchases and movement of goods (copper/GI materials) with credible transportation evidence. Court found suspicious use of two-wheelers for heavy goods transport and non-deposit of tax by selling dealers. HC emphasized that burden of proof lies with dealer claiming input tax credit, and mere production of invoices or cheque payments insufficient. The Tribunal erred in overturning Assessing Authority's findings based solely on documentary evidence without considering goods movement proof and non-payment of tax to exchequer. Penalty under Section 70(2)(a) reinstated as First Appellate Authority lacked grounds for quashing it.
HC upheld revenue's appeal regarding disallowance of input tax credit and penalty imposition under KVAT Act. The respondent failed to substantiate genuine purchases and movement of goods (copper/GI materials) with credible transportation evidence. Court found suspicious use of two-wheelers for heavy goods transport and non-deposit of tax by selling dealers. HC emphasized that burden of proof lies with dealer claiming input tax credit, and mere production of invoices or cheque payments insufficient. The Tribunal erred in overturning Assessing Authority's findings based solely on documentary evidence without considering goods movement proof and non-payment of tax to exchequer. Penalty under Section 70(2)(a) reinstated as First Appellate Authority lacked grounds for quashing it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.