Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Excess ITC was denied under Section 16(4) due to non-reconciliation between GSTR-3B and related disclosures, and the taxpayer had not responded to the show cause notice. The Court found a prima facie overlap in the demand confirmed in the impugned order and, to prevent unjust duplication while ensuring revenue protection, directed the taxpayer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply within 30 days. Upon such compliance, the adjudicating authority was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months and the bank account attachment would stand vacated; the petition was disposed. - HC
Excess ITC was denied under Section 16(4) due to non-reconciliation between GSTR-3B and related disclosures, and the taxpayer had not responded to the show cause notice. The Court found a prima facie overlap in the demand confirmed in the impugned order and, to prevent unjust duplication while ensuring revenue protection, directed the taxpayer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and file a reply within 30 days. Upon such compliance, the adjudicating authority was directed to pass a fresh order on merits within three months and the bank account attachment would stand vacated; the petition was disposed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
