Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under section 129(3) of the GST Act for non-filing of Part-B of the e-way bill, finding no intent to evade tax. The petitioner demonstrated that the omission was due to a technical glitch, a fact undisputed in the record. The Court relied on precedents affirming that mere non-filing of the e-way bill does not attract penalty absent a tax evasion intent. As no authority below recorded any finding of willful tax evasion, the penalty was unwarranted. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the penalty was quashed.
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under section 129(3) of the GST Act for non-filing of Part-B of the e-way bill, finding no intent to evade tax. The petitioner demonstrated that the omission was due to a technical glitch, a fact undisputed in the record. The Court relied on precedents affirming that mere non-filing of the e-way bill does not attract penalty absent a tax evasion intent. As no authority below recorded any finding of willful tax evasion, the penalty was unwarranted. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the penalty was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
