Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Liability of tax arising on account of inadvertent error - mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns The High Court noted the certificates from purchasers, confirming exclusion of duplicate invoices while availing ITC, which reflected in their GSTR 2A returns. The Court concluded that the matter required reconsideration to ascertain if purchasers indeed did not avail excess input tax credit based on duplicate invoices. - The impugned order disregarded the petitioner's explanation, citing failure to amend the GSTR 1 statement by the prescribed deadline. The Court observed that the matter required reconsideration in light of documents submitted by the petitioner, indicating the need to ascertain if purchasers indeed did not avail excess input tax credit based on duplicate invoices.
Liability of tax arising on account of inadvertent error - mismatch between the petitioner's GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns The High Court noted the certificates from purchasers, confirming exclusion of duplicate invoices while availing ITC, which reflected in their GSTR 2A returns. The Court concluded that the matter required reconsideration to ascertain if purchasers indeed did not avail excess input tax credit based on duplicate invoices. - The impugned order disregarded the petitioner's explanation, citing failure to amend the GSTR 1 statement by the prescribed deadline. The Court observed that the matter required reconsideration in light of documents submitted by the petitioner, indicating the need to ascertain if purchasers indeed did not avail excess input tax credit based on duplicate invoices.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
