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 held that the impugned ex-parte assessment order violated principles of natural justice due to non-compliance with Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017, as no opportunity for personal hearing was granted. The show cause notice failed to specify the date, time, and venue for personal hearing, which is mandatory and cannot be left to the petitioner to choose. Additionally, mere uploading of proceedings on the portal without serving notice through at least two prescribed modes under Section 169 was held insufficient. The court set aside the impugned actions and directed the competent authority to schedule a personal hearing with proper notice specifying date, time, and venue, ensuring adherence to statutory procedural safeguards. The petition was allowed accordingly.
The HC held that the impugned ex-parte assessment order violated principles of natural justice due to non-compliance with Section 75(4) of the BGST Act, 2017, as no opportunity for personal hearing was granted. The show cause notice failed to specify the date, time, and venue for personal hearing, which is mandatory and cannot be left to the petitioner to choose. Additionally, mere uploading of proceedings on the portal without serving notice through at least two prescribed modes under Section 169 was held insufficient. The court set aside the impugned actions and directed the competent authority to schedule a personal hearing with proper notice specifying date, time, and venue, ensuring adherence to statutory procedural safeguards. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
