Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
HC determined that the imposition of penalty under Section 122(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017 was procedurally flawed due to non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) regarding communication of tax details. The court found the tax liability determination for July 2017 to March 2019 legally erroneous. As an interim measure, the court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax amount determined in the original order within two weeks, with a consequent restraint on coercive recovery measures by the tax authorities pending further adjudication.
HC determined that the imposition of penalty under Section 122(2)(b) of the GST Act, 2017 was procedurally flawed due to non-compliance with Rule 142(1A) regarding communication of tax details. The court found the tax liability determination for July 2017 to March 2019 legally erroneous. As an interim measure, the court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax amount determined in the original order within two weeks, with a consequent restraint on coercive recovery measures by the tax authorities pending further adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
