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" ?
Disallowance of input tax credit was challenged on the ground that proceedings under Section 73 were initiated only against the recipient without first following the statutory mechanism under Section 42 against the suppliers. The Court held that Section 42(3) mandates issuance of a discrepancy notice to both supplier and recipient, and Section 42(5) permits fastening output tax liability on the recipient only if, after such communication, the supplier fails to rectify the discrepancy in the prescribed return. Since no proceedings/notices were initiated against the suppliers before issuing the show cause notice to the recipient, the notice was without jurisdiction and was quashed, with liberty to proceed against the suppliers. - HC
Disallowance of input tax credit was challenged on the ground that proceedings under Section 73 were initiated only against the recipient without first following the statutory mechanism under Section 42 against the suppliers. The Court held that Section 42(3) mandates issuance of a discrepancy notice to both supplier and recipient, and Section 42(5) permits fastening output tax liability on the recipient only if, after such communication, the supplier fails to rectify the discrepancy in the prescribed return. Since no proceedings/notices were initiated against the suppliers before issuing the show cause notice to the recipient, the notice was without jurisdiction and was quashed, with liberty to proceed against the suppliers. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.