Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
An adjudication order alleging ineligible input tax credit on account of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A could not stand where the authority failed to consider the reconciliation statement specifically furnished by the taxpayer and did not give an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The HC held that, because the dispute was factual and the reply referred to reconciliation material in Annexure-1, the authority was required to re-examine that material before concluding that no reconciliation had been produced. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to explain the ITC mismatch.
An adjudication order alleging ineligible input tax credit on account of a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A could not stand where the authority failed to consider the reconciliation statement specifically furnished by the taxpayer and did not give an effective opportunity to explain the discrepancy. The HC held that, because the dispute was factual and the reply referred to reconciliation material in Annexure-1, the authority was required to re-examine that material before concluding that no reconciliation had been produced. The order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to explain the ITC mismatch.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
