Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
A demand based on belated availment of input tax credit under Section 16(4) could not stand unchanged after the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) into the GST enactments from 01.07.2017. The Court found that the very defect relied on in the show cause notice and impugned order had been cured by the retrospective amendment, so the matter required reconsideration on merits. The impugned order was quashed and the case was remitted for fresh adjudication, with liberty to the taxpayer to file a proper reply with supporting documents.
A demand based on belated availment of input tax credit under Section 16(4) could not stand unchanged after the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) into the GST enactments from 01.07.2017. The Court found that the very defect relied on in the show cause notice and impugned order had been cured by the retrospective amendment, so the matter required reconsideration on merits. The impugned order was quashed and the case was remitted for fresh adjudication, with liberty to the taxpayer to file a proper reply with supporting documents.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.