Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC held that the petition is maintainable and that issuance of a fresh demand on identical grounds previously examined under Section 61 is impermissible. The court construed Section 61(2) as creating an embargo on further demands, including those under Section 73, where the taxpayer's explanation was accepted; Section 73 contains no non-obstante provision to override Section 61(2). Consequently, the show-cause notice issued under Section 73 and the consequential adjudication were vitiated. The impugned SCN dated 29 May 2024 and the resultant order dated 28 Aug 2024 are quashed, and the petition is disposed of with the petitioner granted relief.
HC held that the petition is maintainable and that issuance of a fresh demand on identical grounds previously examined under Section 61 is impermissible. The court construed Section 61(2) as creating an embargo on further demands, including those under Section 73, where the taxpayer's explanation was accepted; Section 73 contains no non-obstante provision to override Section 61(2). Consequently, the show-cause notice issued under Section 73 and the consequential adjudication were vitiated. The impugned SCN dated 29 May 2024 and the resultant order dated 28 Aug 2024 are quashed, and the petition is disposed of with the petitioner granted relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.