Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4784
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95673 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Delhi High Court examined the validity of an order issued u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning lack of communication of notice to the petitioner, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order indicated that the taxpayer did not respond or appear in person, resulting in an ex-parte demand being created. The court noted that despite providing opportunities for a reply and a personal hearing, the taxpayer remained silent. The court held that the petitioner should be given a chance to respond to the Show Cause Notice, and the matter should be re-adjudicated. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The Delhi High Court examined the validity of an order issued u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning lack of communication of notice to the petitioner, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order indicated that the taxpayer did not respond or appear in person, resulting in an ex-parte demand being created. The court noted that despite providing opportunities for a reply and a personal hearing, the taxpayer remained silent. The court held that the petitioner should be given a chance to respond to the Show Cause Notice, and the matter should be re-adjudicated. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
