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...
The High Court considered a case u/s 129 of CGST Act regarding penalty imposition for a minor discrepancy in a Delivery Challan. The issue was whether non-disclosure of Kundan stones justified penalty imposition. The Court found compliance with Rule 55 of CGST Rules except for the mentioned discrepancy. It noted the error in presuming the purpose of transporting gold and held that the goods were for sampling, not sale. The Court quashed the penalty of Rs. 14,50,560 and allowed the petition, directing refund and granting liberty to proceed for the discrepancy.
The High Court considered a case u/s 129 of CGST Act regarding penalty imposition for a minor discrepancy in a Delivery Challan. The issue was whether non-disclosure of Kundan stones justified penalty imposition. The Court found compliance with Rule 55 of CGST Rules except for the mentioned discrepancy. It noted the error in presuming the purpose of transporting gold and held that the goods were for sampling, not sale. The Court quashed the penalty of Rs. 14,50,560 and allowed the petition, directing refund and granting liberty to proceed for the discrepancy.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
