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...
Judicial review of an assessment order was conducted due to discrepancies between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner's replies were not considered, violating natural justice principles. The High Court held the order unsustainable as the petitioner's replies were not taken into account while recording conclusions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and issue a fresh order after considering the petitioner's replies and annexed documents.
Judicial review of an assessment order was conducted due to discrepancies between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B returns. The petitioner's replies were not considered, violating natural justice principles. The High Court held the order unsustainable as the petitioner's replies were not taken into account while recording conclusions. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter remanded for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity, including a personal hearing, to the petitioner and issue a fresh order after considering the petitioner's replies and annexed documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.