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 ruled that the notification dated 31-10-2006, which made production of C-Forms mandatory for CST exemptions under Section 8(5), would not apply retrospectively to the petitioner company. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Prism Cement Limited, the court held that such restrictions operate prospectively and cannot affect absolute exemptions granted prior to the amendment. Since the petitioner had been granted exemption from 07-11-1997 (having invested over Rs. 550 crores in an Integrated Steel Plant), the mandatory C-Form requirement introduced on 10-05-2002 would not apply to them. The petitioner remains entitled to exemption benefits without C-Form submission until 17-04-2013 as originally granted.
The HC ruled that the notification dated 31-10-2006, which made production of C-Forms mandatory for CST exemptions under Section 8(5), would not apply retrospectively to the petitioner company. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Prism Cement Limited, the court held that such restrictions operate prospectively and cannot affect absolute exemptions granted prior to the amendment. Since the petitioner had been granted exemption from 07-11-1997 (having invested over Rs. 550 crores in an Integrated Steel Plant), the mandatory C-Form requirement introduced on 10-05-2002 would not apply to them. The petitioner remains entitled to exemption benefits without C-Form submission until 17-04-2013 as originally granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.