Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
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...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
501 to 520 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
An adjudication order confirming a demand under a show cause notice cannot stand where the authority fails to consider the taxpayer's replies and gives no cogent reasons for rejection. The High Court found complete non-application of mind because the order relied on an unexplained assumption that the matter was sub judice on merits, did not identify the supplies treated as taxable or tax-free after considering the circulars cited, and omitted discussion of all replies. The impugned order was quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh on the notice after considering all replies and granting a fresh hearing.
An adjudication order confirming a demand under a show cause notice cannot stand where the authority fails to consider the taxpayer's replies and gives no cogent reasons for rejection. The High Court found complete non-application of mind because the order relied on an unexplained assumption that the matter was sub judice on merits, did not identify the supplies treated as taxable or tax-free after considering the circulars cited, and omitted discussion of all replies. The impugned order was quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh on the notice after considering all replies and granting a fresh hearing.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
