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 remanded the matter to the first appellate authority with directions to treat the amount deposited by the petitioner under protest as the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the GST Act. The court held that, absent evidence that the protested deposit had been quantified or adjusted against other liabilities, the protested sum is available for adjustment against the 10% pre-deposit requirement and must be accepted to permit institution of the appeal. The first appellate authority was directed to accept the protested deposit as pre-deposit and decide the appeal on merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
The HC allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority with directions to treat the amount deposited by the petitioner under protest as the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the GST Act. The court held that, absent evidence that the protested deposit had been quantified or adjusted against other liabilities, the protested sum is available for adjustment against the 10% pre-deposit requirement and must be accepted to permit institution of the appeal. The first appellate authority was directed to accept the protested deposit as pre-deposit and decide the appeal on merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.