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...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 95715 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 Audit Assessment Order dated 21.03.2025 and the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued in Form VAT-306 as void for want of jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court held the AVR was invalid because Section 41(4)'s mandatory time-limit was not complied with; consequently the Assessing Authority could not lawfully invoke Section 42 after having earlier proceeded under Section 43. Section 49(2) cannot be used to cure an intra-statutory jurisdictional error where the authority erroneously chose Section 43 over Section 42. All proceedings and consequential acts founded on the invalid AVR and the delayed Form VAT-306 notice therefore collapsed and the petition was allowed.
The HC quashed the Audit Assessment Order dated 21.03.2025 and the notice dated 01.05.2024 issued in Form VAT-306 as void for want of jurisdiction and as time-barred. The court held the AVR was invalid because Section 41(4)'s mandatory time-limit was not complied with; consequently the Assessing Authority could not lawfully invoke Section 42 after having earlier proceeded under Section 43. Section 49(2) cannot be used to cure an intra-statutory jurisdictional error where the authority erroneously chose Section 43 over Section 42. All proceedings and consequential acts founded on the invalid AVR and the delayed Form VAT-306 notice therefore collapsed and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
