Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, holding that the rejection of Rs. 2,195/- by the respondent was improper and contrary to the budgetary support scheme notification. The court determined that the petitioner was entitled to budgetary support calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid, after input tax credit utilization. The HC directed the respondent to release the inadmissible amount for the quarter January 2022 to March 2022, finding no justification for the partial claim rejection.
HC allowed the petitioner's refund claim, holding that the rejection of Rs. 2,195/- by the respondent was improper and contrary to the budgetary support scheme notification. The court determined that the petitioner was entitled to budgetary support calculated at 58% of central tax paid through cash ledger and 29% of IGST paid, after input tax credit utilization. The HC directed the respondent to release the inadmissible amount for the quarter January 2022 to March 2022, finding no justification for the partial claim rejection.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
