Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1661 to 1680 of 96504 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dealt with a partial rejection of a waiver claim linked to belated filing of GSTR-9 and noted the absence of a specific appellate remedy against the waiver order. As the petitioner had not appeared despite notice, the Court held that one further opportunity should be granted to file a reply and supporting documents before the same authority. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leaving all factual and legal contentions open. No finding was rendered on the merits of the waiver claim under Rule 164(10), and the request was to be reconsidered in light of the clarifications in Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST.
The High Court dealt with a partial rejection of a waiver claim linked to belated filing of GSTR-9 and noted the absence of a specific appellate remedy against the waiver order. As the petitioner had not appeared despite notice, the Court held that one further opportunity should be granted to file a reply and supporting documents before the same authority. It set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leaving all factual and legal contentions open. No finding was rendered on the merits of the waiver claim under Rule 164(10), and the request was to be reconsidered in light of the clarifications in Circular No. 238/32/2024-GST.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.