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" ?
Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules requires notice in Form GST RFD-08, a full fifteen days to reply in Form GST RFD-09, consideration of that reply, and an opportunity of hearing before refund rejection. The High Court held that curtailing the reply period to seven days, rejecting the claim the next day, and ignoring the petitioner's e-mail response breached the mandatory procedure. The rejection order was therefore unlawful and set aside. The proper officer was directed to issue fresh notice in conformity with Rule 92(3), consider the reply, grant a hearing, and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules requires notice in Form GST RFD-08, a full fifteen days to reply in Form GST RFD-09, consideration of that reply, and an opportunity of hearing before refund rejection. The High Court held that curtailing the reply period to seven days, rejecting the claim the next day, and ignoring the petitioner's e-mail response breached the mandatory procedure. The rejection order was therefore unlawful and set aside. The proper officer was directed to issue fresh notice in conformity with Rule 92(3), consider the reply, grant a hearing, and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
