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" ?
An assessment order rejecting input tax credit under Section 74 was quashed because the petitioner was not afforded a proper personal hearing and the show cause notice was found to be vague. The Court accepted that the authorised representative had been sent to another officer for document verification rather than being effectively heard, and held that one more meaningful opportunity of hearing was required. It also held that the notice did not sufficiently disclose the specific allegations later relied on in the order, impairing the petitioner's ability to respond. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and permitting additional documents.
An assessment order rejecting input tax credit under Section 74 was quashed because the petitioner was not afforded a proper personal hearing and the show cause notice was found to be vague. The Court accepted that the authorised representative had been sent to another officer for document verification rather than being effectively heard, and held that one more meaningful opportunity of hearing was required. It also held that the notice did not sufficiently disclose the specific allegations later relied on in the order, impairing the petitioner's ability to respond. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and permitting additional documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.