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 invalidated tax demand order due to procedural irregularities in inspection and seizure. The court found the seizure order was improperly prepared without independent witnesses, and documents were admittedly tampered by a tax official. The court set aside the demand order dated 09.05.2024, admonished the Deputy Commissioner against future document manipulation, and warned of potential disciplinary action. The writ petition was allowed, rendering the original tax assessment null and void based on violations of BGST/CGST Act, 2017 and CrPC procedural requirements.
HC invalidated tax demand order due to procedural irregularities in inspection and seizure. The court found the seizure order was improperly prepared without independent witnesses, and documents were admittedly tampered by a tax official. The court set aside the demand order dated 09.05.2024, admonished the Deputy Commissioner against future document manipulation, and warned of potential disciplinary action. The writ petition was allowed, rendering the original tax assessment null and void based on violations of BGST/CGST Act, 2017 and CrPC procedural requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
