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...
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
