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...
Petition challenging assessment order and consequential bank attachment was allowed. Impugned order imposing tax liability on allegation of sale suppression based on purchase-outward supply value difference was set aside. Petitioner claimed unawareness of proceedings due to non-receipt of show cause notice. Considering petitioner's assertion and nature of confirmed tax proposal, reconsideration warranted by remitting 5% of disputed tax demand within two weeks and submitting reply to show cause notice within said period. Petition disposed of.
Petition challenging assessment order and consequential bank attachment was allowed. Impugned order imposing tax liability on allegation of sale suppression based on purchase-outward supply value difference was set aside. Petitioner claimed unawareness of proceedings due to non-receipt of show cause notice. Considering petitioner's assertion and nature of confirmed tax proposal, reconsideration warranted by remitting 5% of disputed tax demand within two weeks and submitting reply to show cause notice within said period. Petition disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
