Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Intent to evade tax or not - Challenged the physical inspection and verification report - Penalty - detention on the ground that address of the consigner not found during the inspection carried out at his place of business - The High court emphasized the necessity of proving an intent to evade tax for invoking proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. - The court acknowledged that the respondent did not dispute the fact that taxes had been duly paid by the seller, strengthening the petitioner's argument against tax evasion. - The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside all impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent. It directed the refund of the penalty amount to the petitioner within four weeks.
Intent to evade tax or not - Challenged the physical inspection and verification report - Penalty - detention on the ground that address of the consigner not found during the inspection carried out at his place of business - The High court emphasized the necessity of proving an intent to evade tax for invoking proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. - The court acknowledged that the respondent did not dispute the fact that taxes had been duly paid by the seller, strengthening the petitioner's argument against tax evasion. - The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside all impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent. It directed the refund of the penalty amount to the petitioner within four weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
