Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Blocking the input tax credit against the petitioners - The High Court emphasizes that Rule 86(A) allows restricting debit from the electronic credit ledger for an amount equivalent to fraudulently availed credit. Rule 86(A) doesn't authorize negative balance insertion in the ledger; it only permits blocking of the credit available. The Court rules that blocking ITC effectively deprives the petitioner of the right to discharge liabilities. The respondents should have initiated recovery proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 if the petitioner had fraudulently availed ITC. The action of the respondents is deemed unsustainable as it violates Rule 86(A) and previous court decisions. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to recall the order of blockage immediately.
Blocking the input tax credit against the petitioners - The High Court emphasizes that Rule 86(A) allows restricting debit from the electronic credit ledger for an amount equivalent to fraudulently availed credit. Rule 86(A) doesn't authorize negative balance insertion in the ledger; it only permits blocking of the credit available. The Court rules that blocking ITC effectively deprives the petitioner of the right to discharge liabilities. The respondents should have initiated recovery proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 if the petitioner had fraudulently availed ITC. The action of the respondents is deemed unsustainable as it violates Rule 86(A) and previous court decisions. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to recall the order of blockage immediately.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
