Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Joint development agreements defer taxable transfer where possession lacks part performance, while completed flats determine consideration and exempti...
Coercive recovery could not be used to defeat a subsisting statutory right of appeal where the appeal period under the Act and the relevant notification had not expired. The High Court protected the petitioner from recovery because the petitioner stated an intention to file an appeal with a stay application within the available period; if the appeal is filed, the statutory pre-deposit requirement of 10% would apply and recovery would not be pursued in any event. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the Department to recover dues in accordance with law if no appeal is filed, while all merits were kept open.
Coercive recovery could not be used to defeat a subsisting statutory right of appeal where the appeal period under the Act and the relevant notification had not expired. The High Court protected the petitioner from recovery because the petitioner stated an intention to file an appeal with a stay application within the available period; if the appeal is filed, the statutory pre-deposit requirement of 10% would apply and recovery would not be pursued in any event. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the Department to recover dues in accordance with law if no appeal is filed, while all merits were kept open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
