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...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The U.P. GST law did not exclude prosecution under the general penal law for alleged creation of fake firms, fictitious invoices and wrongful input tax credit claims, because its without prejudice clause preserves other penal provisions and does not bar an FIR for offences under general criminal law. The Court rejected the plea that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was inapplicable merely because GST offences were also alleged. On the facts, prima facie material showed involvement in creating a fictitious firm, generating false e-way bills through another bogus concern, and evading tax without actual movement of goods, so bail was refused.
The U.P. GST law did not exclude prosecution under the general penal law for alleged creation of fake firms, fictitious invoices and wrongful input tax credit claims, because its without prejudice clause preserves other penal provisions and does not bar an FIR for offences under general criminal law. The Court rejected the plea that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was inapplicable merely because GST offences were also alleged. On the facts, prima facie material showed involvement in creating a fictitious firm, generating false e-way bills through another bogus concern, and evading tax without actual movement of goods, so bail was refused.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.