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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 96508 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter, but summons and other investigative steps do not by themselves amount to initiation of such proceedings. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Armour Security, the HC noted possible overlap between Central and State GST action, but declined to decide the merits of that overlap on the material before it. It directed the assessee to comply with the summons and raise the objection before the concerned authority, while requiring the State and Central authorities to communicate and coordinate so that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter. The merits and validity of the summons and notice were left open.
Section 6(2)(b) bars parallel adjudicatory proceedings on the same subject matter, but summons and other investigative steps do not by themselves amount to initiation of such proceedings. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Armour Security, the HC noted possible overlap between Central and State GST action, but declined to decide the merits of that overlap on the material before it. It directed the assessee to comply with the summons and raise the objection before the concerned authority, while requiring the State and Central authorities to communicate and coordinate so that the assessee is not subjected to multiple adjudicatory processes on the same subject matter. The merits and validity of the summons and notice were left open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
