Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC quashed the original and appellate orders under the CGST regime because a material factual claim regarding reversal and reclassification of input tax credit before the show cause notice had not been properly considered. The petitioner had raised the point earlier, but it was rejected for want of documentary support; however, the respondent later confirmed the correctness of that submission before the Court. On that limited basis, the Court held that the foundation of the impugned orders required reconsideration and remanded the matter to the adjudicatory authority for fresh decision expeditiously, leaving all merits open.
The HC quashed the original and appellate orders under the CGST regime because a material factual claim regarding reversal and reclassification of input tax credit before the show cause notice had not been properly considered. The petitioner had raised the point earlier, but it was rejected for want of documentary support; however, the respondent later confirmed the correctness of that submission before the Court. On that limited basis, the Court held that the foundation of the impugned orders required reconsideration and remanded the matter to the adjudicatory authority for fresh decision expeditiously, leaving all merits open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.