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...
The HC held that the respondents improperly sought a 5% compounding charge because such higher rate is chargeable only where an earlier offence has been lawfully compounded and the conditions of that compounding order have been complied with; where the first compounding application was rejected, no compounding order arose and 5% could not be claimed on the subsequent application. The petitioner's contention that the higher rate was inapplicable was accepted, the impugned letter dated 08.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the pending compounding application and any attendant criminal proceedings.
The HC held that the respondents improperly sought a 5% compounding charge because such higher rate is chargeable only where an earlier offence has been lawfully compounded and the conditions of that compounding order have been complied with; where the first compounding application was rejected, no compounding order arose and 5% could not be claimed on the subsequent application. The petitioner's contention that the higher rate was inapplicable was accepted, the impugned letter dated 08.02.2019 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to proceed in accordance with law in relation to the pending compounding application and any attendant criminal proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
