Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 96092 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 dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of a rectification application concerning a mismatch in Form GSTR 3B due to a supplier's failure to file Form GSTR-01. The petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice, leading to the issuance of the assessment order. The rectification application was rejected as no error apparent on the face of the record existed in the original order. The court held that factual disputes raised by the petitioner must be addressed during the assessment process, not through rectification proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order was affirmed, and no interference was warranted. The petition was dismissed.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of a rectification application concerning a mismatch in Form GSTR 3B due to a supplier's failure to file Form GSTR-01. The petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice, leading to the issuance of the assessment order. The rectification application was rejected as no error apparent on the face of the record existed in the original order. The court held that factual disputes raised by the petitioner must be addressed during the assessment process, not through rectification proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order was affirmed, and no interference was warranted. The petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
