Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Petitioner challenged impugned order regarding GST discrepancies, failing to avail opportunity of personal hearing. Court held that notice was issued by respondent based on difference between turnover reported in Form 26AS and Form GSTR 3B. Petitioner replied that difference occurred as Form 26AS includes turnover from April 2017 to June 2017, prior to GST regime, while GSTR3B excluded that period. However, respondent did not consider this aspect while passing impugned order. Court believes granting another opportunity would allow petitioner to establish case before authorities. Impugned order dated 12.12.2023 set aside, matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration on condition that petitioner pays 10% of demand amount within four weeks from 12.08.2024. Setting aside of impugned order effective from date of payment. Petition disposed by way of remand.
Petitioner challenged impugned order regarding GST discrepancies, failing to avail opportunity of personal hearing. Court held that notice was issued by respondent based on difference between turnover reported in Form 26AS and Form GSTR 3B. Petitioner replied that difference occurred as Form 26AS includes turnover from April 2017 to June 2017, prior to GST regime, while GSTR3B excluded that period. However, respondent did not consider this aspect while passing impugned order. Court believes granting another opportunity would allow petitioner to establish case before authorities. Impugned order dated 12.12.2023 set aside, matter remanded to respondent for fresh consideration on condition that petitioner pays 10% of demand amount within four weeks from 12.08.2024. Setting aside of impugned order effective from date of payment. Petition disposed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
