Charitable registration turns on predominant purpose and genuine activities, while incidental fees and related-party rent require supporting adverse m...
MAT book-profit adjustments exclude disallowances for exempt-income expenditure and demerger expenditure unless expressly listed under the statutory c...
Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC upheld denial of input tax credit (ITC) under GST law. Petitioners failed to demonstrate actual receipt of goods and legitimacy of transactions with suppliers. Court emphasized that while Section 7's definition of supply is broad, valid ITC claims must satisfy Section 16(2)(b) requirements. Despite petitioners' argument regarding denied cross-examination of suppliers, HC ruled this wasn't a violation of natural justice. Key findings centered on petitioners' failure to maintain proper documentation, including e-way bills for goods valued over Rs.50,000, and inability to prove physical receipt of goods. Per Rule 36 and Section 16(2), burden of proving valid receipt lies with recipient. Without meeting these statutory requirements, provisional credit must be reversed. Petition dismissed.
HC upheld denial of input tax credit (ITC) under GST law. Petitioners failed to demonstrate actual receipt of goods and legitimacy of transactions with suppliers. Court emphasized that while Section 7's definition of supply is broad, valid ITC claims must satisfy Section 16(2)(b) requirements. Despite petitioners' argument regarding denied cross-examination of suppliers, HC ruled this wasn't a violation of natural justice. Key findings centered on petitioners' failure to maintain proper documentation, including e-way bills for goods valued over Rs.50,000, and inability to prove physical receipt of goods. Per Rule 36 and Section 16(2), burden of proving valid receipt lies with recipient. Without meeting these statutory requirements, provisional credit must be reversed. Petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
