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" ?
Writ jurisdiction against a penalty order under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST law was declined on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107, since there was no breach of natural justice, no lack of jurisdiction, no vires challenge, and no established infringement of fundamental rights. The impugned order contained detailed factual findings, including doubts about the genuineness of documents and e-way bills, which required appellate fact-finding and could not be adjudicated on affidavits in writ proceedings; consequently, reliance on the 31 December 2018 circular to claim benefit under Section 129(1)(a) was not accepted. The taxpayer was relegated to statutory appeal, with directions to enable e-filing access. - HC
Writ jurisdiction against a penalty order under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST law was declined on the ground of efficacious alternative remedy under Section 107, since there was no breach of natural justice, no lack of jurisdiction, no vires challenge, and no established infringement of fundamental rights. The impugned order contained detailed factual findings, including doubts about the genuineness of documents and e-way bills, which required appellate fact-finding and could not be adjudicated on affidavits in writ proceedings; consequently, reliance on the 31 December 2018 circular to claim benefit under Section 129(1)(a) was not accepted. The taxpayer was relegated to statutory appeal, with directions to enable e-filing access. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.