Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
Section 7 admission requires established financial debt and default, not precise interest quantification, while post-suspension defaults remain action...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Time Limitation - issuing a notice after the detention - The High Court noted that the actions of the tax authority did not align with the prescribed timeline outlined in section 129(3) of the CGST Act. As per this section, the proper officer must issue a notice within seven days of detention or seizure and pass an order within seven days from the date of service of such notice. Since both the notice and the subsequent order were issued beyond these time limits, the court found no justification to uphold the demand raised. - While acknowledging the discrepancy in the vehicle number recorded in the e-way bills, the court observed that it was a minor error, possibly a bonafide mistake. The court indicated that such discrepancies should not lead to severe penalties under section 129 of the CGST Act.
Time Limitation - issuing a notice after the detention - The High Court noted that the actions of the tax authority did not align with the prescribed timeline outlined in section 129(3) of the CGST Act. As per this section, the proper officer must issue a notice within seven days of detention or seizure and pass an order within seven days from the date of service of such notice. Since both the notice and the subsequent order were issued beyond these time limits, the court found no justification to uphold the demand raised. - While acknowledging the discrepancy in the vehicle number recorded in the e-way bills, the court observed that it was a minor error, possibly a bonafide mistake. The court indicated that such discrepancies should not lead to severe penalties under section 129 of the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
