Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
