Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1661 to 1680 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
State tax officers cannot invoke detention or confiscation powers for inter-State movement of goods under the IGST regime where the State has no tax allocation in the transaction. The Court held that cross-empowerment under GST is limited to functions assigned to the State as proper officer, and Andhra Pradesh officers may act under the IGST Act only where the State is entitled to a share of tax; otherwise they may merely forward the material to the proper officers of the consignor and consignee. The Court also held that valuation disputes, alleged undervaluation, description mismatch, excess quantity, or absence of an e-way bill, without more, do not justify action under detention and confiscation provisions. The impugned proceedings were set aside as without jurisdiction.
State tax officers cannot invoke detention or confiscation powers for inter-State movement of goods under the IGST regime where the State has no tax allocation in the transaction. The Court held that cross-empowerment under GST is limited to functions assigned to the State as proper officer, and Andhra Pradesh officers may act under the IGST Act only where the State is entitled to a share of tax; otherwise they may merely forward the material to the proper officers of the consignor and consignee. The Court also held that valuation disputes, alleged undervaluation, description mismatch, excess quantity, or absence of an e-way bill, without more, do not justify action under detention and confiscation provisions. The impugned proceedings were set aside as without jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.