Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The Delhi High Court reviewed a case concerning excess Input Tax Credit claimed by a taxpayer by comparing GSTR-2A with GSTR-3B. The court noted the lack of cooperation from the taxpayer and discrepancies in the ITC data despite a special audit. The court referred to Sections 73(7) and 73(9) of the CGST/DGST Act regarding tax notices and penalties. The court found the officer did not properly consider the detailed reply and supporting documents provided by the taxpayer. Consequently, the court set aside the order dated 27.04.2024, ruling in favor of the petitioner and disposing of the petition.
The Delhi High Court reviewed a case concerning excess Input Tax Credit claimed by a taxpayer by comparing GSTR-2A with GSTR-3B. The court noted the lack of cooperation from the taxpayer and discrepancies in the ITC data despite a special audit. The court referred to Sections 73(7) and 73(9) of the CGST/DGST Act regarding tax notices and penalties. The court found the officer did not properly consider the detailed reply and supporting documents provided by the taxpayer. Consequently, the court set aside the order dated 27.04.2024, ruling in favor of the petitioner and disposing of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
