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 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 
