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" ?
Section 125 of the CGST framework was construed as prescribing a single maximum general penalty of Rs. 25,000, so the penalty could not be split into separate CGST and SGST penalties to exceed that statutory cap. The High Court therefore held that imposing Rs. 25,000 under CGST and a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST under the same provision was unjustified. The penalty order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with all available grounds left open to the petitioner.
Section 125 of the CGST framework was construed as prescribing a single maximum general penalty of Rs. 25,000, so the penalty could not be split into separate CGST and SGST penalties to exceed that statutory cap. The High Court therefore held that imposing Rs. 25,000 under CGST and a further Rs. 25,000 under SGST under the same provision was unjustified. The penalty order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with all available grounds left open to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
