Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 3 October 2024 that had rejected the petitioner's appeal for alleged non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6)(b), CGST Act. The Court concluded the Appellate Authority's reasoning was contrary to settled judicial precedent and therefore restored the petitioner's appeal to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. No remand for compliance with the pre-deposit was ordered; the matter is to proceed to substantive determination before the Appellate Authority in accordance with applicable law and precedent.
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order dated 3 October 2024 that had rejected the petitioner's appeal for alleged non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107(6)(b), CGST Act. The Court concluded the Appellate Authority's reasoning was contrary to settled judicial precedent and therefore restored the petitioner's appeal to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits. No remand for compliance with the pre-deposit was ordered; the matter is to proceed to substantive determination before the Appellate Authority in accordance with applicable law and precedent.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.