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 HC modified the GST registration cancellation order, ruling that it would take effect from the date of the Show Cause Notice (12 February 2024) rather than retrospectively from 7 February 2019. The Court found the retrospective cancellation invalid due to absence of supporting reasons in the original SCN and failure to provide prior notice to the petitioner, which violated principles of natural justice. The Court determined these procedural defects alone were sufficient grounds to grant relief, consequently quashing the retrospective aspect of the impugned order while allowing the cancellation to stand from the SCN date.
The HC modified the GST registration cancellation order, ruling that it would take effect from the date of the Show Cause Notice (12 February 2024) rather than retrospectively from 7 February 2019. The Court found the retrospective cancellation invalid due to absence of supporting reasons in the original SCN and failure to provide prior notice to the petitioner, which violated principles of natural justice. The Court determined these procedural defects alone were sufficient grounds to grant relief, consequently quashing the retrospective aspect of the impugned order while allowing the cancellation to stand from the SCN date.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.