Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
The petitioner challenged the differential tax liability demand for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22 and the attachment of the bank account. The court observed that although the respondent issued Form DRC-01A, and the petitioner replied, the subsequent Form DRC-01 was uploaded on the portal without the petitioner's knowledge. The petitioner blamed the accountant for not appearing before the authority. However, the court held that the assessee is responsible for appearing before the authority. Once the show cause notice is uploaded on the portal, the petitioner should have filed a reply within the stipulated time. The petitioner cannot blame the department for not providing a physical copy. The court opined that an opportunity to file a reply and a personal hearing before the authority should be granted to the petitioner, as the impugned orders were passed ex-parte, violating natural justice principles. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and disposed of the petition.
The petitioner challenged the differential tax liability demand for the financial years 2017-18 to 2021-22 and the attachment of the bank account. The court observed that although the respondent issued Form DRC-01A, and the petitioner replied, the subsequent Form DRC-01 was uploaded on the portal without the petitioner's knowledge. The petitioner blamed the accountant for not appearing before the authority. However, the court held that the assessee is responsible for appearing before the authority. Once the show cause notice is uploaded on the portal, the petitioner should have filed a reply within the stipulated time. The petitioner cannot blame the department for not providing a physical copy. The court opined that an opportunity to file a reply and a personal hearing before the authority should be granted to the petitioner, as the impugned orders were passed ex-parte, violating natural justice principles. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and disposed of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
