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 of accumulated unutilised ITC was denied on the premise that refund under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act is unavailable where the input and output are the same and the rate comparison should be confined to the principal input vis-Ã -vis principal output. Relying on binding precedent, it was held that Section 54(3)(ii) does not bar refund merely because input and output are identical, and the proviso does not require comparing only the tax rate on the principal input with that on the principal output supply; nor can refund be restricted only to cases where the main input rate exceeds the principal output rate. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the refund claim was allowed. - HC
Refund of accumulated unutilised ITC was denied on the premise that refund under Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act is unavailable where the input and output are the same and the rate comparison should be confined to the principal input vis-Ã -vis principal output. Relying on binding precedent, it was held that Section 54(3)(ii) does not bar refund merely because input and output are identical, and the proviso does not require comparing only the tax rate on the principal input with that on the principal output supply; nor can refund be restricted only to cases where the main input rate exceeds the principal output rate. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the refund claim was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.