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...
The HC held that an adjudication order cannot confirm a demand that is not aligned with the show cause notice, as Section 75(7) requires the order to stay within the scope of the notice. On comparison, the notice and the order related to the same tax period and GST registration, yet the confirmed demand appeared inconsistent with the proposal in the notice. The impugned order was therefore quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits, with liberty to issue a corrigendum and proceed after obtaining the petitioner's response.
The HC held that an adjudication order cannot confirm a demand that is not aligned with the show cause notice, as Section 75(7) requires the order to stay within the scope of the notice. On comparison, the notice and the order related to the same tax period and GST registration, yet the confirmed demand appeared inconsistent with the proposal in the notice. The impugned order was therefore quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits, with liberty to issue a corrigendum and proceed after obtaining the petitioner's response.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
