Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
A typographical discrepancy between e-way bill particulars and tax invoices, where goods otherwise correspond with the e-way bill and transport documents, is treated as a human error when it provides no benefit and does not indicate tax avoidance. The notes state that such a minor inadvertent mistake, without intent to deceive the Revenue or financial implications, should attract only the minor penalty under clause 5 of the circular dated 14 September 2018, rather than detention and penalty action under Section 129. The Section 129 penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable minor penalty.
A typographical discrepancy between e-way bill particulars and tax invoices, where goods otherwise correspond with the e-way bill and transport documents, is treated as a human error when it provides no benefit and does not indicate tax avoidance. The notes state that such a minor inadvertent mistake, without intent to deceive the Revenue or financial implications, should attract only the minor penalty under clause 5 of the circular dated 14 September 2018, rather than detention and penalty action under Section 129. The Section 129 penalty order was quashed, with refund of the deposited amount after deduction of the applicable minor penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.