Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4883
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97649 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC directed petitioners to appear before investigating officers of the O/o. Director General, GST Intelligence, Raipur on 28 Oct 2025 and thereafter as required for inquiry into alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit claims based on suspected fake invoices. The court ordered that, subject to petitioners' cooperation in the investigation, the Central GST Authority shall refrain from instituting coercive action against the petitioners in respect of two specified supplier firms. The respondent authorities were directed to adjudicate the objections filed by the petitioners expeditiously by passing a reasoned, speaking order in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of.
HC directed petitioners to appear before investigating officers of the O/o. Director General, GST Intelligence, Raipur on 28 Oct 2025 and thereafter as required for inquiry into alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit claims based on suspected fake invoices. The court ordered that, subject to petitioners' cooperation in the investigation, the Central GST Authority shall refrain from instituting coercive action against the petitioners in respect of two specified supplier firms. The respondent authorities were directed to adjudicate the objections filed by the petitioners expeditiously by passing a reasoned, speaking order in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.