Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Penalty u/s 129(1)(b) - Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up - The High Court held that, upon a perusal of the order in appeal, it is crystal clear that the petitioner could not justify the reasons for non production of the invoice and the e-way bill. In such cases, a presumption automatically arises that there was an intention to evade tax. This presumption would be rebuttable. However, the petitioner was not able to bring any evidence to rebut the said presumption of evasion of tax.
Penalty u/s 129(1)(b) - Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up - The High Court held that, upon a perusal of the order in appeal, it is crystal clear that the petitioner could not justify the reasons for non production of the invoice and the e-way bill. In such cases, a presumption automatically arises that there was an intention to evade tax. This presumption would be rebuttable. However, the petitioner was not able to bring any evidence to rebut the said presumption of evasion of tax.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
