Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns was quashed because the show cause notice did not disclose the specific period of default and the cancellation order gave no reasons beyond reproducing the statutory ground. The High Court held that cancellation carries adverse civil consequences, so Rule 22 and Form GST REG-19 require a speaking order and an effective opportunity to respond; the assessee's failure to reply did not cure that defect. Despite delay in filing the writ petition, the statutory infirmity in the cancellation order prevailed. The matter was remitted to the show cause stage, with liberty to reply or file pending returns and discharge dues, interest, late fee and penalty.
Cancellation of GST registration for non-filing of returns was quashed because the show cause notice did not disclose the specific period of default and the cancellation order gave no reasons beyond reproducing the statutory ground. The High Court held that cancellation carries adverse civil consequences, so Rule 22 and Form GST REG-19 require a speaking order and an effective opportunity to respond; the assessee's failure to reply did not cure that defect. Despite delay in filing the writ petition, the statutory infirmity in the cancellation order prevailed. The matter was remitted to the show cause stage, with liberty to reply or file pending returns and discharge dues, interest, late fee and penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
