Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Denial of refund claimed u/s 142(3) of CGST Act for service tax paid under RCM was incorrect. Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applies, not Rule 9(1)(bb), allowing credit. Imposition of equal penalty u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was improper as no suppression of facts or intention to evade tax was proved. Appellant was eligible for refund u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 for CENVAT credit paid after GST implementation, though unable to avail TRAN-1 credit due to time lapse. Impugned order rejecting refund claims is set aside, and appeal allowed.
Denial of refund claimed u/s 142(3) of CGST Act for service tax paid under RCM was incorrect. Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applies, not Rule 9(1)(bb), allowing credit. Imposition of equal penalty u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was improper as no suppression of facts or intention to evade tax was proved. Appellant was eligible for refund u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 for CENVAT credit paid after GST implementation, though unable to avail TRAN-1 credit due to time lapse. Impugned order rejecting refund claims is set aside, and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
