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...
HC upheld cancellation of petitioner's registration under Section 29(2)(e) due to fraudulent misrepresentation of business premises. Despite presenting electricity bills and leave/license agreement, petitioner failed to substantiate actual occupancy through proof of license fee payments or utility charges. Petitioner's inaction in responding to show cause notice, non-appearance before appellate authority, and failure to challenge Bureau of Investigation's spot visit findings proved detrimental. Court found proper officer's inference plausible based on available evidence. The registration cancellation order was deemed neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence, leading to dismissal of writ petition challenging the cancellation order.
HC upheld cancellation of petitioner's registration under Section 29(2)(e) due to fraudulent misrepresentation of business premises. Despite presenting electricity bills and leave/license agreement, petitioner failed to substantiate actual occupancy through proof of license fee payments or utility charges. Petitioner's inaction in responding to show cause notice, non-appearance before appellate authority, and failure to challenge Bureau of Investigation's spot visit findings proved detrimental. Court found proper officer's inference plausible based on available evidence. The registration cancellation order was deemed neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence, leading to dismissal of writ petition challenging the cancellation order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.