Functional comparability under TNMM requires transaction-specific FAR analysis before benchmarking business-support services provided to associated en...
Advance pricing agreement methodology can guide benchmarking for non-covered years when functions, assets, risks and activities remain materially unch...
Tax-audit exemption for substantially State-funded educational universities prevents audit-failure penalties where income qualifies for statutory exem...
Functional, asset and risk analysis excludes diversified technology companies from captive software development comparables under cost-plus arrangemen...
Mobile-phone electronic evidence failed to establish customs undervaluation, while duty survived on non-authentic origin certificates without importer...
Automotive radio classification treats integrated infotainment features as supplementary, placing complete and qualifying unassembled units under the ...
Separate corporate personality prevents directors from being personally liable for company deposits without a guarantee or independent legal undertaki...
Page of 4905
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 98083 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 adjudicatory process violated principles of natural justice because no date for personal hearing was specified in the SCN and the petitioner company was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the merits; however, the court found the CGST Department not at fault insofar as notices and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal and the petitioner failed to establish non-service. The petition for remand to the adjudicating authority was refused. In view of the petitioner's absence of a merits hearing, the HC permitted the petitioner company to pursue its statutory appellate remedy before the appropriate Appellate Authority. Petition disposed.
The HC held that the adjudicatory process violated principles of natural justice because no date for personal hearing was specified in the SCN and the petitioner company was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the merits; however, the court found the CGST Department not at fault insofar as notices and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal and the petitioner failed to establish non-service. The petition for remand to the adjudicating authority was refused. In view of the petitioner's absence of a merits hearing, the HC permitted the petitioner company to pursue its statutory appellate remedy before the appropriate Appellate Authority. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4905 
