Cost-to-cost reimbursement of seconded employees is not service consideration; transfer-pricing markup was deleted and amalgamation amortisation allow...
Crystallisation of liability supports prior-period expense deduction, while functionally distinct divisions require separate transfer-pricing benchmar...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires transaction-specific FAR analysis before benchmarking business-support services provided to associated en...
Advance pricing agreement methodology can guide benchmarking for non-covered years when functions, assets, risks and activities remain materially unch...
Tax-audit exemption for substantially State-funded educational universities prevents audit-failure penalties where income qualifies for statutory exem...
Functional, asset and risk analysis excludes diversified technology companies from captive software development comparables under cost-plus arrangemen...
Mobile-phone electronic evidence failed to establish customs undervaluation, while duty survived on non-authentic origin certificates without importer...
Section 129(3) of the CGST Act imposes separate mandatory deadlines: the penalty notice must be issued within seven days of detention or seizure, and the penalty order must follow within seven days after service of that notice. The latter period runs from service, not from a reply, valuation exercise or other intervening event. Because detention and seizure are coercive restraints on goods and conveyances, administrative difficulty, minimal delay and inspection-stage timelines cannot extend either deadline; a delayed Section 129 order is invalid. The affected person must receive an opportunity of hearing. Invalidity of Section 129 proceedings does not preclude separately lawful action under other GST provisions.
Section 129(3) of the CGST Act imposes separate mandatory deadlines: the penalty notice must be issued within seven days of detention or seizure, and the penalty order must follow within seven days after service of that notice. The latter period runs from service, not from a reply, valuation exercise or other intervening event. Because detention and seizure are coercive restraints on goods and conveyances, administrative difficulty, minimal delay and inspection-stage timelines cannot extend either deadline; a delayed Section 129 order is invalid. The affected person must receive an opportunity of hearing. Invalidity of Section 129 proceedings does not preclude separately lawful action under other GST provisions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4902 
