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, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, examined a challenge to a demand order and SCN issued under the GST Act, 2017. It held that, under Section 75(7) read with Section 74(9), the final order cannot demand tax, interest or penalty in excess of, or on grounds different from, those specified in the SCN. In the present case, the impugned order under Section 74(9) demanded an amount far exceeding that in the SCN, violating Section 75(7) and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order and consequential demand were quashed and the petition allowed.
HC, exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, examined a challenge to a demand order and SCN issued under the GST Act, 2017. It held that, under Section 75(7) read with Section 74(9), the final order cannot demand tax, interest or penalty in excess of, or on grounds different from, those specified in the SCN. In the present case, the impugned order under Section 74(9) demanded an amount far exceeding that in the SCN, violating Section 75(7) and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order and consequential demand were quashed and the petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
