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...
Eligibility of the petitioner to make a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2015 (SVLDRS) and the appropriation of the amount quantified in the audit report from the eligible refund claimed by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was ineligible to make a declaration under SVLDRS as the audit was initiated before 30.06.2019, and the amount of duty involved was not quantified on or before that date, as per Section 125(1)(e) of the Scheme. Regarding the appropriation of the refund, the court ruled that the respondent authority was not justified in adjusting the outstanding dues quantified in the audit report from the refund claim without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for hearing, as required u/s 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner regarding the refund claim.
Eligibility of the petitioner to make a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2015 (SVLDRS) and the appropriation of the amount quantified in the audit report from the eligible refund claimed by the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner was ineligible to make a declaration under SVLDRS as the audit was initiated before 30.06.2019, and the amount of duty involved was not quantified on or before that date, as per Section 125(1)(e) of the Scheme. Regarding the appropriation of the refund, the court ruled that the respondent authority was not justified in adjusting the outstanding dues quantified in the audit report from the refund claim without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity for hearing, as required u/s 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity for hearing to the petitioner regarding the refund claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
