Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
The petitioner is entitled to carry forward the reduced Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) Credit for payment of taxes under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme. The respondent, while calculating the amount payable in Form 3 regarding tax arrears and amount payable under DTVSV, failed to consider the Assessing Officer's order permitting the petitioner to carry forward the MAT Credit. The High Court quashed Form 3 and the rectification order, remanding the matter to the respondent to recalculate the entitlement of refund in accordance with the Scheme and Rules, applying Rule 10, and considering the Assessing Officer's order u/s 154 giving effect to the CIT(A) order regarding the MAT Credit carry forward.
The petitioner is entitled to carry forward the reduced Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) Credit for payment of taxes under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas (DTVSV) Scheme. The respondent, while calculating the amount payable in Form 3 regarding tax arrears and amount payable under DTVSV, failed to consider the Assessing Officer's order permitting the petitioner to carry forward the MAT Credit. The High Court quashed Form 3 and the rectification order, remanding the matter to the respondent to recalculate the entitlement of refund in accordance with the Scheme and Rules, applying Rule 10, and considering the Assessing Officer's order u/s 154 giving effect to the CIT(A) order regarding the MAT Credit carry forward.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
