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...
The court addressed whether parallel proceedings under Sections 73/74 and Section 122 (penalty) create impermissible overlap and whether the show-cause notice could proceed pending resolution of a state appeal; it declined to decide the overlap on merits but ordered the state Appellate Authority to conclude the pending appeal within a limited period - outcome: appeal to be disposed within three weeks and the Central Authorities may proceed with the show-cause notice only after that conclusion. The petitioner may thereafter file a reply raising the overlap and reliance on the CBIC circular; remedies preserved. - HC
The court addressed whether parallel proceedings under Sections 73/74 and Section 122 (penalty) create impermissible overlap and whether the show-cause notice could proceed pending resolution of a state appeal; it declined to decide the overlap on merits but ordered the state Appellate Authority to conclude the pending appeal within a limited period - outcome: appeal to be disposed within three weeks and the Central Authorities may proceed with the show-cause notice only after that conclusion. The petitioner may thereafter file a reply raising the overlap and reliance on the CBIC circular; remedies preserved. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
