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...
The applicant had suppressed material facts from the Authority for Advance Ruling by mis-declaring that the issue was not pending in any other proceedings, when in fact, proceedings on the same issue had already commenced by the DGGI. Upon being informed of this by the Appellant, the Authority for Advance Ruling declared the Ruling void ab initio u/s 104 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Appellant before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling against the void Ruling became infructuous and was dismissed.
The applicant had suppressed material facts from the Authority for Advance Ruling by mis-declaring that the issue was not pending in any other proceedings, when in fact, proceedings on the same issue had already commenced by the DGGI. Upon being informed of this by the Appellant, the Authority for Advance Ruling declared the Ruling void ab initio u/s 104 of the Act. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Appellant before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling against the void Ruling became infructuous and was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.