Tariff classification determines GST schedule and rate; beverages in Schedule III attract the higher rate, tea extracts and syrups in Schedule I attra...
Fraudulent trading requires cogent evidence of intent to defraud; ordinary-course payments protected, except post-insolvency withdrawals must be resto...
Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
An application under Section 119(2)(b) challenged refusal to permit filing a revised return beyond five years; the High Court found the taxpayer had pursued rectification within the five year window and had reasonably relied on rectification as the remedy. The court held the authority could not ignore the circular's temporal condition, treated the misdeclaration as a bona fide error without deciding revised return merits, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the revised return for the relevant assessment year in accordance with law.
An application under Section 119(2)(b) challenged refusal to permit filing a revised return beyond five years; the High Court found the taxpayer had pursued rectification within the five year window and had reasonably relied on rectification as the remedy. The court held the authority could not ignore the circular's temporal condition, treated the misdeclaration as a bona fide error without deciding revised return merits, set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the revised return for the relevant assessment year in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
