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...
Simultaneous investigation by the Central and State GST authorities - The petitioner argued that the DGGI's actions violated a circular mandating coordination between Central and State tax authorities in investigations. They contended that since the State tax authority had already initiated proceedings for the same period, the DGGI should not have conducted parallel proceedings. The High Court declined to express a definite opinion on the matter, as it found that the petitioner had not raised the jurisdictional issue when responding to the summons. The Court emphasized the petitioner's right to respond to the show cause-cum-demand notice issued by the DGGI and take appropriate recourse under the CGST Act.
Simultaneous investigation by the Central and State GST authorities - The petitioner argued that the DGGI's actions violated a circular mandating coordination between Central and State tax authorities in investigations. They contended that since the State tax authority had already initiated proceedings for the same period, the DGGI should not have conducted parallel proceedings. The High Court declined to express a definite opinion on the matter, as it found that the petitioner had not raised the jurisdictional issue when responding to the summons. The Court emphasized the petitioner's right to respond to the show cause-cum-demand notice issued by the DGGI and take appropriate recourse under the CGST Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
