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" ?
HC held that notices issued to cancel petitioner-dealer's permission to pay tax at compounded rate under Section 8(f)(iv) KVAT for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were unsustainable. Proceedings initiated on 15.03.2018 were beyond the reasonable five-year limitation inferred for such action, rendering them time barred even independently of Section 25(1). HC further held Section 25AA(5) KVAT to be retrospectively applicable, as it was introduced after the VAT regime solely to govern such past situations; hence, only the suppressed turnover could be assessed at the scheduled rate without cancelling the compounding option for that year. Though initiation of cancellation proceedings was otherwise validly founded on intelligence reports, the impugned notices were quashed and the petition allowed.
HC held that notices issued to cancel petitioner-dealer's permission to pay tax at compounded rate under Section 8(f)(iv) KVAT for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were unsustainable. Proceedings initiated on 15.03.2018 were beyond the reasonable five-year limitation inferred for such action, rendering them time barred even independently of Section 25(1). HC further held Section 25AA(5) KVAT to be retrospectively applicable, as it was introduced after the VAT regime solely to govern such past situations; hence, only the suppressed turnover could be assessed at the scheduled rate without cancelling the compounding option for that year. Though initiation of cancellation proceedings was otherwise validly founded on intelligence reports, the impugned notices were quashed and the petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.