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...
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the appellate authority (R-1) had erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for alleged non-compliance with the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement. HC held that the amount already deposited by the petitioner under protest constituted sufficient compliance with the statutory pre-deposit condition and ought to have been reckoned for entertaining the appeal on merits. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 at Annexure-H was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to R-1 for fresh consideration of the statutory appeal on merits, strictly in accordance with law, without insisting on any further pre-deposit from the petitioner.
HC allowed the writ petition, holding that the appellate authority (R-1) had erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for alleged non-compliance with the mandatory 10% pre-deposit requirement. HC held that the amount already deposited by the petitioner under protest constituted sufficient compliance with the statutory pre-deposit condition and ought to have been reckoned for entertaining the appeal on merits. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 at Annexure-H was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to R-1 for fresh consideration of the statutory appeal on merits, strictly in accordance with law, without insisting on any further pre-deposit from the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
