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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Validity of a show cause notice issued under s.74 of the CGST Act turned on whether the department established fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression as the causal basis for short payment/ITC irregularity. The court held that s.74 is jurisdictionally invocable only where such culpable intent is traceable; a notice lacking these foundational allegations and supporting material is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. On facts, the taxpayer had voluntarily intimated its intent to pay the shortfall prior to the enforcement investigation, negating any inference of fraud or suppression; consequently, denial of ITC by invoking the s.39(9) embargo did not arise. The notice was quashed and the petition allowed - HC
Validity of a show cause notice issued under s.74 of the CGST Act turned on whether the department established fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression as the causal basis for short payment/ITC irregularity. The court held that s.74 is jurisdictionally invocable only where such culpable intent is traceable; a notice lacking these foundational allegations and supporting material is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. On facts, the taxpayer had voluntarily intimated its intent to pay the shortfall prior to the enforcement investigation, negating any inference of fraud or suppression; consequently, denial of ITC by invoking the s.39(9) embargo did not arise. The notice was quashed and the petition allowed - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.