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 same-subject-matter bar in GST proceedings arises only when adjudicatory proceedings begin through a show-cause notice; it does not arise merely because inquiry, search, or investigation has commenced. Where overlap is noticed, the authorities may decide inter se which one continues, and the other may transfer the material. Here, the State GST authorities transferred the investigation to the Central GST authorities, so the complaint and criminal proceedings were not barred as parallel proceedings. The arrest was also upheld because the grounds of arrest were furnished in writing, explained to the petitioner, and acknowledged, consistent with governing GST arrest requirements. The petition was dismissed.
A same-subject-matter bar in GST proceedings arises only when adjudicatory proceedings begin through a show-cause notice; it does not arise merely because inquiry, search, or investigation has commenced. Where overlap is noticed, the authorities may decide inter se which one continues, and the other may transfer the material. Here, the State GST authorities transferred the investigation to the Central GST authorities, so the complaint and criminal proceedings were not barred as parallel proceedings. The arrest was also upheld because the grounds of arrest were furnished in writing, explained to the petitioner, and acknowledged, consistent with governing GST arrest requirements. The petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.