Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148A(b) - Petitioner claimed that despite certain transactions being booked under the PAN of erstwhile company (amalgamated company) due to an error, they had correctly considered all transactions in their return. - The court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of proper application of mind in granting approval under Section 151. They observed discrepancies in the approval process, indicating a failure to review the request and draft order adequately. Consequently, the court deemed it appropriate to quash the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequent notice issued under Section 148.
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 148A(b) - Petitioner claimed that despite certain transactions being booked under the PAN of erstwhile company (amalgamated company) due to an error, they had correctly considered all transactions in their return. - The court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of proper application of mind in granting approval under Section 151. They observed discrepancies in the approval process, indicating a failure to review the request and draft order adequately. Consequently, the court deemed it appropriate to quash the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the consequent notice issued under Section 148.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
