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 quashed the impugned order denying refund of IGST to the petitioner-assessee and directed grant of refund. It held that mere suspicion of excess ITC availment cannot justify withholding refund through a notice under Rule 92(3) CGST Rules when no discrepancy in the refund claim is established. Relying on SC principles, HC held that initiation of recovery proceedings for excess ITC requires issuance of a proper show cause notice under Sections 73 or 74 CGST Act, with adherence to natural justice. As no such notice existed and the audit report did not indicate wrongful ITC for FY 2019-20, non-grant of refund was held unsustainable.
HC quashed the impugned order denying refund of IGST to the petitioner-assessee and directed grant of refund. It held that mere suspicion of excess ITC availment cannot justify withholding refund through a notice under Rule 92(3) CGST Rules when no discrepancy in the refund claim is established. Relying on SC principles, HC held that initiation of recovery proceedings for excess ITC requires issuance of a proper show cause notice under Sections 73 or 74 CGST Act, with adherence to natural justice. As no such notice existed and the audit report did not indicate wrongful ITC for FY 2019-20, non-grant of refund was held unsustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.