Transfer pricing comparables and adjustments: Tribunal revisits loss-maker status, segmental comparability, working capital relief, and risk allocatio...
Business expenditure disallowance failed where commission, related-party salary and promotion payments were supported by records and inquiry was inade...
The High Court ruled on a case involving the levy of penalty u/s 129 of the GST Act due to an error in mentioning the vehicle number in the E-way bill during the transit of goods. The court found that the discrepancy in the vehicle registration number did not indicate any intention to evade tax, as it was a genuine sale of goods. The court held that this minor error does not warrant penalty proceedings u/s 129. The court set aside the orders of the detaining authority and the first appellate authority, as there was no evidence of tax evasion beyond the incorrect vehicle number in the E-way bill. The petition was allowed, and the orders were deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
The High Court ruled on a case involving the levy of penalty u/s 129 of the GST Act due to an error in mentioning the vehicle number in the E-way bill during the transit of goods. The court found that the discrepancy in the vehicle registration number did not indicate any intention to evade tax, as it was a genuine sale of goods. The court held that this minor error does not warrant penalty proceedings u/s 129. The court set aside the orders of the detaining authority and the first appellate authority, as there was no evidence of tax evasion beyond the incorrect vehicle number in the E-way bill. The petition was allowed, and the orders were deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
