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 petition for bail and remanded the petitioner in custody. The court held there existed reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner committed offences under s.132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, for wrongfully availing and passing on ineligible ITC totalling Rs. 19.76 crores, exceeding the statutory threshold. A clerical error in the arrest authorization did not vitiate the reasons to believe, which were otherwise specific and reasoned. As investigation remained incomplete, several co-accused were absconding, and there was a real risk of evidence tampering, the court concluded that bail would impede the probe and therefore refused relief.
The HC dismissed the petition for bail and remanded the petitioner in custody. The court held there existed reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner committed offences under s.132(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, for wrongfully availing and passing on ineligible ITC totalling Rs. 19.76 crores, exceeding the statutory threshold. A clerical error in the arrest authorization did not vitiate the reasons to believe, which were otherwise specific and reasoned. As investigation remained incomplete, several co-accused were absconding, and there was a real risk of evidence tampering, the court concluded that bail would impede the probe and therefore refused relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.