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 impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside for noncompliance with Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) and for violation of the principles of natural justice under Section 75(4). The court found that a DRC-01 summary cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice; a distinct SCN and, where issued, a Statement under Section 73(3) are mandatory, and Section 73(2)'s timing requirements must be observed. Because the Proper Officer proceeded without affording an effective hearing, the adverse order was invalid. The petition is allowed; respondents are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings de novo under Section 73 if deemed appropriate.
The HC held that the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside for noncompliance with Section 73 and Rule 142(1)(a) and for violation of the principles of natural justice under Section 75(4). The court found that a DRC-01 summary cannot substitute a proper Show Cause Notice; a distinct SCN and, where issued, a Statement under Section 73(3) are mandatory, and Section 73(2)'s timing requirements must be observed. Because the Proper Officer proceeded without affording an effective hearing, the adverse order was invalid. The petition is allowed; respondents are granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings de novo under Section 73 if deemed appropriate.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.