Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
Challenge to invocation of the extended period under s.74 of the TNGST Act was considered in light of an unclear show-cause notice and the alleged mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that proper adjudication on limitation and tax liability required the taxpayer to furnish a comprehensive reply on merits along with legal submissions, which had not been effectively done, warranting a fresh determination. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the proper officer for reconsideration, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax from the taxpayer's electronic cash ledger within 30 days. - HC
Challenge to invocation of the extended period under s.74 of the TNGST Act was considered in light of an unclear show-cause notice and the alleged mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The court held that proper adjudication on limitation and tax liability required the taxpayer to furnish a comprehensive reply on merits along with legal submissions, which had not been effectively done, warranting a fresh determination. Accordingly, the impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the proper officer for reconsideration, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax from the taxpayer's electronic cash ledger within 30 days. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
