Service permanent establishment requires non-auxiliary services, while arm's-length distributor remuneration precludes further profit attribution in I...
Make-available condition excludes standard SaaS subscription receipts where customers receive no independently usable technical knowledge after subscr...
Anonymous donation classification fails where charitable trusts maintain undisputed donor identity records and evidence corpus contributions' intended...
Transfer pricing method selection favours TNMM where medical-equipment distribution involves substantial post-import value addition and operational ri...
Post-export shipping bill conversion remains available where contemporaneous evidence supports EPCG benefits despite curable procedural omissions and ...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
