Co-operative society's mandatory reserve and share capital fixed deposits with banks-interest treated as business income under 80P(2)(a)(iii) deductio...
Income tax reassessment reopening after four years on investigation tip, without s.147 proviso disclosure failure, struck down as borrowed satisfactio...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
