Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
HC examined proceedings under S.74 GST Act against the purchasing dealer for alleged inadmissible ITC on fictitious invoices without movement of goods. It found the supplier had filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and that GSTR-2A was auto-populated, with no dispute by authorities regarding these statutory records. HC held there was no material indicating fraud or wilful misstatement by the petitioner and that tax collected had reached the revenue. Relying on binding precedent that ITC cannot be denied where the selling dealer was registered and tax deposited, HC quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
HC examined proceedings under S.74 GST Act against the purchasing dealer for alleged inadmissible ITC on fictitious invoices without movement of goods. It found the supplier had filed GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and that GSTR-2A was auto-populated, with no dispute by authorities regarding these statutory records. HC held there was no material indicating fraud or wilful misstatement by the petitioner and that tax collected had reached the revenue. Relying on binding precedent that ITC cannot be denied where the selling dealer was registered and tax deposited, HC quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
