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" ?
The validity of a show cause notice issued under Section 74 CGST was considered alongside whether prior inter-court judgments merge or bind lower authorities. The court held that a Supreme Court dismissal in limine does not effect a merger of a prior judgment, so the merger concept did not apply; consequence: earlier Delhi High Court reasoning could not be treated as merged. The court also held that subsequent High Court decisions taking a different view bind authorities in that jurisdiction; consequence: the impugned show cause notice dated 30/5/2025 was quashed, but authorities retain liberty to reissue a notice strictly complying with Section 74 CGST if legally permissible.
The validity of a show cause notice issued under Section 74 CGST was considered alongside whether prior inter-court judgments merge or bind lower authorities. The court held that a Supreme Court dismissal in limine does not effect a merger of a prior judgment, so the merger concept did not apply; consequence: earlier Delhi High Court reasoning could not be treated as merged. The court also held that subsequent High Court decisions taking a different view bind authorities in that jurisdiction; consequence: the impugned show cause notice dated 30/5/2025 was quashed, but authorities retain liberty to reissue a notice strictly complying with Section 74 CGST if legally permissible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.