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...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Page of 4811
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 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" ?
An efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars recourse to Article 226, and the natural justice exception applies only where denial of hearing is shown on the facts. The Court found that the petitioner had been served with the show cause notice, given time to reply, and granted further extension, but filed no reply or material showing denial of hearing; the writ challenge was therefore not maintainable. It also held that completion of audit under Section 65 does not divest the proper officer of jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 73, because the statutory scheme contemplates such action where audit reveals tax liability or irregular input tax credit. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy.
An efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars recourse to Article 226, and the natural justice exception applies only where denial of hearing is shown on the facts. The Court found that the petitioner had been served with the show cause notice, given time to reply, and granted further extension, but filed no reply or material showing denial of hearing; the writ challenge was therefore not maintainable. It also held that completion of audit under Section 65 does not divest the proper officer of jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 73, because the statutory scheme contemplates such action where audit reveals tax liability or irregular input tax credit. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
