Depreciation and routine compliance expenses disallowance did not prove inaccurate particulars or misreporting; penalty sustained only on foreign trav...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3381 to 3400 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Petitioner challenged ineligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on certain commodities as per Section 17(5) of GST statutes and ITC on supplies from cancelled dealers. Petitioner submitted invoices, e-way bills, and supplier's returns proving payment of tax. Impugned order lacked findings on first issue, confirmed tax proposal on second issue citing lack of lorry receipts, weighment slips, and payment proof, despite show cause notice not seeking these. High Court set aside impugned order, remanded matter for reconsideration, allowed petitioner to submit additional reply with relevant documents on movement of goods within 15 days.
Petitioner challenged ineligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on certain commodities as per Section 17(5) of GST statutes and ITC on supplies from cancelled dealers. Petitioner submitted invoices, e-way bills, and supplier's returns proving payment of tax. Impugned order lacked findings on first issue, confirmed tax proposal on second issue citing lack of lorry receipts, weighment slips, and payment proof, despite show cause notice not seeking these. High Court set aside impugned order, remanded matter for reconsideration, allowed petitioner to submit additional reply with relevant documents on movement of goods within 15 days.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
