Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
