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 quashed the seizure and appellate orders and allowed the petition. The court held that the intercepted goods, a hydraulic excavator sent for repair, did not constitute a taxable supply of goods or services under the GST regime as per the Government circulars treating movement for repair as non-taxable. Consequently, there was no GST liability requiring transport documentation or justification for seizure under section 129(3) of the GST Act. The impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner were declared unsustainable in law and set aside, and the petitioner's challenge was accordingly allowed.
The HC quashed the seizure and appellate orders and allowed the petition. The court held that the intercepted goods, a hydraulic excavator sent for repair, did not constitute a taxable supply of goods or services under the GST regime as per the Government circulars treating movement for repair as non-taxable. Consequently, there was no GST liability requiring transport documentation or justification for seizure under section 129(3) of the GST Act. The impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner were declared unsustainable in law and set aside, and the petitioner's challenge was accordingly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.