Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involved the determination of penalty u/s 69(1)(k) of the J&K Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the issuance of 35 improper invoices on the same day. The High Court held that each tax invoice, if found to be in default, attracts a penalty of ten times the tax payable on that invoice or Rs. 10,000, whichever is higher. The court clarified that the penalty is meant to deter VAT dealers from under-assessing or evading tax liabilities. It emphasized that the penalty is to be applied to each individual tax invoice, not based on the total number of invoices generated in a day. The court rejected the notion of penalizing based on the accumulation of invoices for a specific day. Each default on a tax invoice is to be penalized independently as per the provisions of the VAT Act.
The case involved the determination of penalty u/s 69(1)(k) of the J&K Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for the issuance of 35 improper invoices on the same day. The High Court held that each tax invoice, if found to be in default, attracts a penalty of ten times the tax payable on that invoice or Rs. 10,000, whichever is higher. The court clarified that the penalty is meant to deter VAT dealers from under-assessing or evading tax liabilities. It emphasized that the penalty is to be applied to each individual tax invoice, not based on the total number of invoices generated in a day. The court rejected the notion of penalizing based on the accumulation of invoices for a specific day. Each default on a tax invoice is to be penalized independently as per the provisions of the VAT Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
