Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rectification petition - Validity Of Order passed - discrepancy between the GSTR 3B return - The petitioner contended that the discrepancy arose due to the belated filing of GSTR 1 by the supplier for one invoice and asserted their inability to upload a reply on the GST portal. Supporting documents, including certificates from the supplier and their Chartered Accountant, were submitted but not considered in the impugned order. - The High Court found that the non-consideration of these documents was significant and warranted interference with the order. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration.
Rectification petition - Validity Of Order passed - discrepancy between the GSTR 3B return - The petitioner contended that the discrepancy arose due to the belated filing of GSTR 1 by the supplier for one invoice and asserted their inability to upload a reply on the GST portal. Supporting documents, including certificates from the supplier and their Chartered Accountant, were submitted but not considered in the impugned order. - The High Court found that the non-consideration of these documents was significant and warranted interference with the order. Consequently, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.