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 set aside the Rectification Order dated 28 June 2024 and disposed of the writ petition. The Court found the impugned rectification order to be mechanical, lacking reasons and failing to apply the principle of natural justice by not affording a personal hearing when the order adversely affected the assessee. Although the petitioner filed a reply and attributed delay to a dispute with a GST consultant, the delay in challenging the December 2023 order was inadequately explained and did not justify condonation; the petitioner had the opportunity to file submissions. Nevertheless, because the rectification was issued without reasoned assessment or hearing, the HC annulled that rectification.
HC set aside the Rectification Order dated 28 June 2024 and disposed of the writ petition. The Court found the impugned rectification order to be mechanical, lacking reasons and failing to apply the principle of natural justice by not affording a personal hearing when the order adversely affected the assessee. Although the petitioner filed a reply and attributed delay to a dispute with a GST consultant, the delay in challenging the December 2023 order was inadequately explained and did not justify condonation; the petitioner had the opportunity to file submissions. Nevertheless, because the rectification was issued without reasoned assessment or hearing, the HC annulled that rectification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
