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 High Court dealt with a case involving the rejection of a refund claim due to discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B return. The Court found that no reasons were given for determining that the claim did not meet the requirements of u/s 77. Additionally, the Court noted that although it was concluded that there was no excess payment, the petitioner's detailed response on this issue was not considered, and proper reasons were not provided for this conclusion. As a result, the Court disposed of the petition by remanding the matter for further consideration.
The High Court dealt with a case involving the rejection of a refund claim due to discrepancies between the petitioner's GSTR 1 statement and GSTR 3B return. The Court found that no reasons were given for determining that the claim did not meet the requirements of u/s 77. Additionally, the Court noted that although it was concluded that there was no excess payment, the petitioner's detailed response on this issue was not considered, and proper reasons were not provided for this conclusion. As a result, the Court disposed of the petition by remanding the matter for further consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
