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 appeal challenging the issuance of the SCN under Section 73 of the CGST Act. It was held that the Central GST authorities had validly initiated proceedings first, including inspection under Section 67(1) and issuance of a show cause notice, thereby precluding the State GST authorities from initiating parallel proceedings on the same subject matter as per Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The State proceedings, including issuance of DRC-01 and DRC-02, were closed without adjudication. Consequently, the Central GST proceedings were not barred, and the appellant's contention lacked merit. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
The HC dismissed the appeal challenging the issuance of the SCN under Section 73 of the CGST Act. It was held that the Central GST authorities had validly initiated proceedings first, including inspection under Section 67(1) and issuance of a show cause notice, thereby precluding the State GST authorities from initiating parallel proceedings on the same subject matter as per Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The State proceedings, including issuance of DRC-01 and DRC-02, were closed without adjudication. Consequently, the Central GST proceedings were not barred, and the appellant's contention lacked merit. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.