Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Liability of a private company director under Section 89 of the GST enactments places the burden of proof on the director to demonstrate that non-recovery of tax is not attributable to his gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty; the High Court quashed the impugned recovery notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, permitting the director to file a proper reply and discharge the statutory burden within two weeks. Failure to comply permits respondents to proceed to recover tax as if the writ were dismissed.
Liability of a private company director under Section 89 of the GST enactments places the burden of proof on the director to demonstrate that non-recovery of tax is not attributable to his gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty; the High Court quashed the impugned recovery notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, permitting the director to file a proper reply and discharge the statutory burden within two weeks. Failure to comply permits respondents to proceed to recover tax as if the writ were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
