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" ?
Parallel GST adjudication is barred where the same transactions are already the subject of earlier CGST proceedings and the overlap is undisputed. The Court held that, in view of Section 6 of the CGST Act, the State authority was required to verify the common GST portal record and consider the taxpayer's objection to overlapping show cause notices. Because the impugned order ignored that objection despite clear overlap, the State adjudication could not be sustained. The order was quashed, the State notice kept in abeyance, and the CGST authority was directed to complete adjudication before any further State action.
Parallel GST adjudication is barred where the same transactions are already the subject of earlier CGST proceedings and the overlap is undisputed. The Court held that, in view of Section 6 of the CGST Act, the State authority was required to verify the common GST portal record and consider the taxpayer's objection to overlapping show cause notices. Because the impugned order ignored that objection despite clear overlap, the State adjudication could not be sustained. The order was quashed, the State notice kept in abeyance, and the CGST authority was directed to complete adjudication before any further State action.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.