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" ?
The HC allowed the petition in part, holding that the impugned orders issued by the respondents were illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction insofar as they imposed and confirmed a penalty of Rs. 6,05,17,933/-. The Court found that the respondents failed to apply Sections 74 and 75 of the KGST Act and improperly invoked Section 122, resulting in a penalty demand exceeding both the show cause notice and the confirmed tax. The HC set aside the impugned orders to the limited extent of the aforesaid penalty and remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law, preserving the petitioner's readiness to pay tax and interest as determined.
The HC allowed the petition in part, holding that the impugned orders issued by the respondents were illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction insofar as they imposed and confirmed a penalty of Rs. 6,05,17,933/-. The Court found that the respondents failed to apply Sections 74 and 75 of the KGST Act and improperly invoked Section 122, resulting in a penalty demand exceeding both the show cause notice and the confirmed tax. The HC set aside the impugned orders to the limited extent of the aforesaid penalty and remitted the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law, preserving the petitioner's readiness to pay tax and interest as determined.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4883 
