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" ?
Refund was denied where goods were moved under an e-way bill containing an incorrect destination address, and the plea of inadvertent error was rejected. The court held that the taxpayer had adequate opportunity to seek correction, and unlike relied-on precedents, the consignor and consignee being the same negated the claim of a bona fide mistake. The court further found that repeated similar "address errors" could indicate a modus operandi, and the taxpayer produced no corroborative records (such as ledgers, books, or movement registers) to prove that the goods were actually meant for the stated warehouse. The writ petition was dismissed. - HC
Refund was denied where goods were moved under an e-way bill containing an incorrect destination address, and the plea of inadvertent error was rejected. The court held that the taxpayer had adequate opportunity to seek correction, and unlike relied-on precedents, the consignor and consignee being the same negated the claim of a bona fide mistake. The court further found that repeated similar "address errors" could indicate a modus operandi, and the taxpayer produced no corroborative records (such as ledgers, books, or movement registers) to prove that the goods were actually meant for the stated warehouse. The writ petition was dismissed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.