Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
A show cause notice issued in disregard of a binding and unchallenged advance ruling was treated as non-est because the ruling had attained finality between the parties and remained operative under the CGST framework. The Court held that, where the invalidity of the notice was apparent on the face of the record, the petitioner was not required to first reply to the notice or pursue the statutory remedy. It therefore exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and quashed the notice as lacking foundation.
A show cause notice issued in disregard of a binding and unchallenged advance ruling was treated as non-est because the ruling had attained finality between the parties and remained operative under the CGST framework. The Court held that, where the invalidity of the notice was apparent on the face of the record, the petitioner was not required to first reply to the notice or pursue the statutory remedy. It therefore exercised writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and quashed the notice as lacking foundation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
