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" ?
A High Court held that a show cause notice under Section 73 was unsustainable where it rested on a factually incorrect audit premise, the supporting audit report was not supplied, and the notice failed to disclose the material particulars needed for an effective reply. The notice alleged excess input tax credit, ITC mismatch, reverse charge liability and undischarged tax liability, but did not set out the basis for those allegations. Reading Section 73(3) with natural justice, the Court ruled that the assessee must be informed of the precise tax, interest and ITC discrepancies. The notice was set aside, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
A High Court held that a show cause notice under Section 73 was unsustainable where it rested on a factually incorrect audit premise, the supporting audit report was not supplied, and the notice failed to disclose the material particulars needed for an effective reply. The notice alleged excess input tax credit, ITC mismatch, reverse charge liability and undischarged tax liability, but did not set out the basis for those allegations. Reading Section 73(3) with natural justice, the Court ruled that the assessee must be informed of the precise tax, interest and ITC discrepancies. The notice was set aside, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.