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 examined proceedings under S.74 GST Act against the purchasing dealer for alleged inadmissible ITC on fictitious invoices without movement of goods. It found the supplier had filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and that GSTR-2A was auto-populated, with no dispute by authorities regarding these statutory records. HC held there was no material indicating fraud or wilful misstatement by the petitioner and that tax collected had reached the revenue. Relying on binding precedent that ITC cannot be denied where the selling dealer was registered and tax deposited, HC quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
HC examined proceedings under S.74 GST Act against the purchasing dealer for alleged inadmissible ITC on fictitious invoices without movement of goods. It found the supplier had filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and that GSTR-2A was auto-populated, with no dispute by authorities regarding these statutory records. HC held there was no material indicating fraud or wilful misstatement by the petitioner and that tax collected had reached the revenue. Relying on binding precedent that ITC cannot be denied where the selling dealer was registered and tax deposited, HC quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
