Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty liability of firm partners for fraudulent input tax credit was upheld where the adjudicating authority linked them, through their own statements, WhatsApp chats and other electronic material, to fake invoices, fake e-way bills and hawala routing of funds. The High Court held that the order was a reasoned adjudication and that the findings showed the firm's affairs were carried on with the petitioners' knowledge and consent, bringing them within the liability contemplated under Section 122(1A). The challenge based on breach of natural justice failed, Kranti Associates was held inapplicable, and no case for interference under Article 226 was made out. The writ petition was rejected.
Penalty liability of firm partners for fraudulent input tax credit was upheld where the adjudicating authority linked them, through their own statements, WhatsApp chats and other electronic material, to fake invoices, fake e-way bills and hawala routing of funds. The High Court held that the order was a reasoned adjudication and that the findings showed the firm's affairs were carried on with the petitioners' knowledge and consent, bringing them within the liability contemplated under Section 122(1A). The challenge based on breach of natural justice failed, Kranti Associates was held inapplicable, and no case for interference under Article 226 was made out. The writ petition was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
