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 dismissed the belated application for rectification under s.161 as time-barred but observed that, prima facie, the petitioner may fall within the exemption under Serial No.20 of N.N. 2/2017-CT (Rate); however, the factual question whether the petitioner dealt in goods covered by that entry was held to be inappropriate for determination by the HC. The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the original authority for fresh adjudication, directing adjudication on terms and specifying provisional compliance by the petitioner of 25% of the disputed tax. The petition was disposed of by remand.
The HC dismissed the belated application for rectification under s.161 as time-barred but observed that, prima facie, the petitioner may fall within the exemption under Serial No.20 of N.N. 2/2017-CT (Rate); however, the factual question whether the petitioner dealt in goods covered by that entry was held to be inappropriate for determination by the HC. The court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter to the original authority for fresh adjudication, directing adjudication on terms and specifying provisional compliance by the petitioner of 25% of the disputed tax. The petition was disposed of by remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.