Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
RPA (Remote Pilot Aircraft) for military use defined to include drones/UAV/UAS; exemptions limited to specified defence imports with Joint Secretary c...
Whether the penalty quantified under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was computed erroneously was the dominant issue. Applying the principle in a prior binding decision on similar facts, the Court held that the penalty must be re-determined strictly in accordance with the statutory formula under Section 129(1)(a), and an order reflecting an incorrect computation cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was set aside and the tax authorities were directed to re-compute and determine the penalty afresh within three weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of. - HC
Whether the penalty quantified under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was computed erroneously was the dominant issue. Applying the principle in a prior binding decision on similar facts, the Court held that the penalty must be re-determined strictly in accordance with the statutory formula under Section 129(1)(a), and an order reflecting an incorrect computation cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was set aside and the tax authorities were directed to re-compute and determine the penalty afresh within three weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
