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, exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order refusing rectification under s.161 of the GST Act and ordered correction of a clerical/arithmetic error in the electronically filed figures whereby "Rs. 1,07,916.48" was erroneously recorded as "Rs. 1,07,91,648.00." The matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), CT & GST Circle, for consideration of the petition for rectification and for modification of the assessment order under s.73 accordingly. The authority is directed to permit the petitioner to rectify the mistake and give consequential effect to the correction within four weeks of receipt of this order. Petition disposed.
The HC, exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order refusing rectification under s.161 of the GST Act and ordered correction of a clerical/arithmetic error in the electronically filed figures whereby "Rs. 1,07,916.48" was erroneously recorded as "Rs. 1,07,91,648.00." The matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), CT & GST Circle, for consideration of the petition for rectification and for modification of the assessment order under s.73 accordingly. The authority is directed to permit the petitioner to rectify the mistake and give consequential effect to the correction within four weeks of receipt of this order. Petition disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.