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" ?
Section 54(8)(e) of the CGST Act excludes from fund credit any refundable amount that was not passed on by the taxpayer; because the respondent admitted passing the tax burden to consumers, that exception did not apply and the refund could not be paid to consumers under the provision. The High Court nevertheless accepted a taxpayer proposal to deposit the refunded sum into a designated account and seek tariff reductions to benefit consumers-a procedure not provided by Section 54 or its Rules, impracticable to implement and legally impermissible. The High Court order creating this judicially fashioned refund mechanism was set aside.
Section 54(8)(e) of the CGST Act excludes from fund credit any refundable amount that was not passed on by the taxpayer; because the respondent admitted passing the tax burden to consumers, that exception did not apply and the refund could not be paid to consumers under the provision. The High Court nevertheless accepted a taxpayer proposal to deposit the refunded sum into a designated account and seek tariff reductions to benefit consumers-a procedure not provided by Section 54 or its Rules, impracticable to implement and legally impermissible. The High Court order creating this judicially fashioned refund mechanism was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.