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...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
661 to 680 of 96208 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 4A of the 1957 AP Sales Tax Act was treated as empowering a superior officer to exercise assessment powers without a separate jurisdictional order, so the Deputy Commissioner's assessment was upheld. The extended limitation under section 14(3) applied because the dealer produced accounts and related material after inspection, making the assessment timely. The dealer failed to discharge the section 6A burden to prove stock transfer or agency movement in the prescribed manner, so the transactions were treated as inter-State sales and the natural justice objection based on denial of cross-examination failed. Claims of double turnover addition and sales return deductions were rejected for want of proof, and penalty under the CST regime was sustained through the State penalty provision.
Section 4A of the 1957 AP Sales Tax Act was treated as empowering a superior officer to exercise assessment powers without a separate jurisdictional order, so the Deputy Commissioner's assessment was upheld. The extended limitation under section 14(3) applied because the dealer produced accounts and related material after inspection, making the assessment timely. The dealer failed to discharge the section 6A burden to prove stock transfer or agency movement in the prescribed manner, so the transactions were treated as inter-State sales and the natural justice objection based on denial of cross-examination failed. Claims of double turnover addition and sales return deductions were rejected for want of proof, and penalty under the CST regime was sustained through the State penalty provision.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.