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...
Penalty u/s 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - goods detained on the ground that the goods were being transported on a vehicle different from that declared on e-way bill - onus to prove (shifting burden on petitioner) - The High Court held that, the intention to evade tax is sine qua non before imposition of penalty. I - Based on the lack of evidence demonstrating an intention to evade tax and the adherence to tax regulations by the petitioner, the High Court quashes the orders imposing penalties under Section 129(3) of the Act and allows the writ petition.
Penalty u/s 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - goods detained on the ground that the goods were being transported on a vehicle different from that declared on e-way bill - onus to prove (shifting burden on petitioner) - The High Court held that, the intention to evade tax is sine qua non before imposition of penalty. I - Based on the lack of evidence demonstrating an intention to evade tax and the adherence to tax regulations by the petitioner, the High Court quashes the orders imposing penalties under Section 129(3) of the Act and allows the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
