Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where rectification of an appellate order under s.107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 was refused in a dispute concerning deferred availment of ITC alleged to be barred by s.16(4), the governing Notification dated 08.10.2024 issued under s.148 was held to clarify both entitlement and procedure for rectification where ITC was treated as wrongly availed solely due to s.16(4), but the taxpayer may be eligible under s.16(5) or s.16(6). Since the rectification applications were founded on this Notification, the appellate authority was required to reconsider the request in light of the prevailing legal framework; consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. - HC
Where rectification of an appellate order under s.107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 was refused in a dispute concerning deferred availment of ITC alleged to be barred by s.16(4), the governing Notification dated 08.10.2024 issued under s.148 was held to clarify both entitlement and procedure for rectification where ITC was treated as wrongly availed solely due to s.16(4), but the taxpayer may be eligible under s.16(5) or s.16(6). Since the rectification applications were founded on this Notification, the appellate authority was required to reconsider the request in light of the prevailing legal framework; consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
