Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the petitioner's challenge to an appellate order under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had belatedly filed an appeal against a Section 74 order dated 19th January 2021 covering the tax period April 2018 to November 2019, depositing 12.5% of disputed tax under the belated filing scheme. However, Rs.1,45,188 had been recovered from the petitioner's credit ledger against demand id ZD190121004969C, which was not properly credited in Form GST APL-04. Since the total tax demand in Form GST DRC-07 was Rs.1,14,736 and Rs.1,45,188 had already been recovered, no further demand could be raised. The HC found the recovered amount should have been adjusted against principal tax demand first, remanding the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration due to lack of clarity in the order.
The HC allowed the petitioner's challenge to an appellate order under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had belatedly filed an appeal against a Section 74 order dated 19th January 2021 covering the tax period April 2018 to November 2019, depositing 12.5% of disputed tax under the belated filing scheme. However, Rs.1,45,188 had been recovered from the petitioner's credit ledger against demand id ZD190121004969C, which was not properly credited in Form GST APL-04. Since the total tax demand in Form GST DRC-07 was Rs.1,14,736 and Rs.1,45,188 had already been recovered, no further demand could be raised. The HC found the recovered amount should have been adjusted against principal tax demand first, remanding the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration due to lack of clarity in the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
