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" ?
Consolidation of multiple financial years/tax periods into a single show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act was contested; the court preferred subsequent Bombay High Court decisions finding such consolidation impermissible, holding that authorities within the State are bound by those later judgments and that the Delhi High Court decision does not operate as a merger where the Supreme Court dismissed review in limine. The court permitted respondents to revive the petition if Bombay High Court decisions are set aside and expressly allowed reissuance of notice strictly in terms of Section 74 if no other legal impediment exists.
Consolidation of multiple financial years/tax periods into a single show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act was contested; the court preferred subsequent Bombay High Court decisions finding such consolidation impermissible, holding that authorities within the State are bound by those later judgments and that the Delhi High Court decision does not operate as a merger where the Supreme Court dismissed review in limine. The court permitted respondents to revive the petition if Bombay High Court decisions are set aside and expressly allowed reissuance of notice strictly in terms of Section 74 if no other legal impediment exists.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.