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" ?
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration is permissible only if the taxpayer is specifically put on notice that such retrospective action is proposed and is given the statutory minimum time to respond. Here, the original show cause notice did not propose retrospective cancellation, and the later communication introducing that proposal did not comply with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules because no seven working days were allowed from service of notice. The same-day retrospective cancellation was therefore contrary to Rule 22 and violative of fair procedure. The HC set aside the cancellation order, while leaving the authorities free to begin fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Retrospective cancellation of GST registration is permissible only if the taxpayer is specifically put on notice that such retrospective action is proposed and is given the statutory minimum time to respond. Here, the original show cause notice did not propose retrospective cancellation, and the later communication introducing that proposal did not comply with Rule 22 of the CGST Rules because no seven working days were allowed from service of notice. The same-day retrospective cancellation was therefore contrary to Rule 22 and violative of fair procedure. The HC set aside the cancellation order, while leaving the authorities free to begin fresh proceedings in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
