Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Generation of Duplicate / multiple E-way Bills - Delay in filing of Appeal before the Appellate Authority - The petitioner argued that these duplicates were the result of technical mistakes made by a new employee. Although multiple E-way bills were generated for the same invoices, only one consignment was actually dispatched, with the GST collected duly paid to the department and reflected in the returns. The High Court, acknowledging the technical nature of the error and the rectification attempts by the petitioner, concluded that no tax demand was justified. However, the Court noted a delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time frame and directed the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax. - Petitioner permitted to file an appeal within two weeks.
Generation of Duplicate / multiple E-way Bills - Delay in filing of Appeal before the Appellate Authority - The petitioner argued that these duplicates were the result of technical mistakes made by a new employee. Although multiple E-way bills were generated for the same invoices, only one consignment was actually dispatched, with the GST collected duly paid to the department and reflected in the returns. The High Court, acknowledging the technical nature of the error and the rectification attempts by the petitioner, concluded that no tax demand was justified. However, the Court noted a delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed time frame and directed the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax. - Petitioner permitted to file an appeal within two weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
