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 dismissed the petition, holding that no penalty proceedings could be initiated under the GST Act or the J&K VAT Act, 2005 for goods liable to Entry Tax under the Act of 2000. The Court clarified that Section 6 of the Act of 2000 incorporates only procedural provisions relating to appeals, revisions, recovery, and refund mutatis mutandis from the GST Act or the Act of 2005, and does not extend to imposing penalties absent a specific charging section. Since Section 4 of the Act of 2000 prescribes penalty solely for falsification of documents, the imposition of penalty for bypassing the Check Post without false documentation lacks statutory authority. The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate under Article 265 requiring a substantive charging provision for levy of penalty and rejected attempts to extend penalty provisions by reference. The petition was thus found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.
The HC dismissed the petition, holding that no penalty proceedings could be initiated under the GST Act or the J&K VAT Act, 2005 for goods liable to Entry Tax under the Act of 2000. The Court clarified that Section 6 of the Act of 2000 incorporates only procedural provisions relating to appeals, revisions, recovery, and refund mutatis mutandis from the GST Act or the Act of 2005, and does not extend to imposing penalties absent a specific charging section. Since Section 4 of the Act of 2000 prescribes penalty solely for falsification of documents, the imposition of penalty for bypassing the Check Post without false documentation lacks statutory authority. The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate under Article 265 requiring a substantive charging provision for levy of penalty and rejected attempts to extend penalty provisions by reference. The petition was thus found devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.