Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Seeking activation of GSTIN and granting final certificate of registration to the Petitioners from 01.07.2017 - The case involved a dispute regarding the activation of the petitioner's GSTIN under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. Technical glitches initially resulted in the linkage of the petitioner's GSTIN to the PAN of a partnership firm instead of the proprietor's PAN. As a consequence, the petitioner faced challenges in availing input tax credit for purchases made during the transition period. - The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, ruling that they were not responsible for the initial technical errors. The Court ordered the activation of the correct GSTIN with retroactive effect from July 1, 2017, allowing the petitioner to avail input tax credit for the relevant period.
Seeking activation of GSTIN and granting final certificate of registration to the Petitioners from 01.07.2017 - The case involved a dispute regarding the activation of the petitioner's GSTIN under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. Technical glitches initially resulted in the linkage of the petitioner's GSTIN to the PAN of a partnership firm instead of the proprietor's PAN. As a consequence, the petitioner faced challenges in availing input tax credit for purchases made during the transition period. - The High Court found merit in the petitioner's argument, ruling that they were not responsible for the initial technical errors. The Court ordered the activation of the correct GSTIN with retroactive effect from July 1, 2017, allowing the petitioner to avail input tax credit for the relevant period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.