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 dismissed a challenge to an order u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court held that the extended period was justified, and the proper officer's consideration of the response cannot be questioned in a writ petition. Referring to previous cases, the court emphasized that the extended period cannot be invoked without clear allegations of wilful misstatement, suppression of fact, fraud, or collusion. The authorities had provided clear basis for invoking the extended period due to fraudulent availment of input tax credit. The petitioners cannot question the findings or sufficiency of allegations through writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed a challenge to an order u/s 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court held that the extended period was justified, and the proper officer's consideration of the response cannot be questioned in a writ petition. Referring to previous cases, the court emphasized that the extended period cannot be invoked without clear allegations of wilful misstatement, suppression of fact, fraud, or collusion. The authorities had provided clear basis for invoking the extended period due to fraudulent availment of input tax credit. The petitioners cannot question the findings or sufficiency of allegations through writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
