Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
721 to 740 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.