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" ?
A writ petition against a show cause notice was entertained because the matter had been pending for years, pleadings were complete, no further factual enquiry was needed, and the notice itself showed that the amount collected as GST matched the amount paid to the Government. On those admitted facts, the Court treated the issue as a pure question of law on the scope of Section 76 of the CGST Act and held that the provision could not be used to demand tax again merely because payment was made through another GST registration of the same assessee in the same State. Section 76 targets non-remittance of tax collected, not double taxation where the revenue has already received the amount.
A writ petition against a show cause notice was entertained because the matter had been pending for years, pleadings were complete, no further factual enquiry was needed, and the notice itself showed that the amount collected as GST matched the amount paid to the Government. On those admitted facts, the Court treated the issue as a pure question of law on the scope of Section 76 of the CGST Act and held that the provision could not be used to demand tax again merely because payment was made through another GST registration of the same assessee in the same State. Section 76 targets non-remittance of tax collected, not double taxation where the revenue has already received the amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.