Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 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" ?
After interception of goods in transit, the Court held that the authorities could not bypass the detention and seizure process under section 129 and proceed straight to confiscation under section 130 by issuing Form GST MOV-10. It applied its earlier Gujarat HC decision that sections 129 and 130 operate in distinct fields, and that confiscation under section 130 is relevant only where intention to evade tax is involved. Because proceedings had been initiated under section 129 but were then converted directly into confiscation proceedings, the notice and consequential action were unsustainable and were quashed.
After interception of goods in transit, the Court held that the authorities could not bypass the detention and seizure process under section 129 and proceed straight to confiscation under section 130 by issuing Form GST MOV-10. It applied its earlier Gujarat HC decision that sections 129 and 130 operate in distinct fields, and that confiscation under section 130 is relevant only where intention to evade tax is involved. Because proceedings had been initiated under section 129 but were then converted directly into confiscation proceedings, the notice and consequential action were unsustainable and were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.