Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
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...
ITAT held that omission to mention a Document Identification Number in the initiating notice did not invalidate the proceeding, because the retrospective validation under section 292BA cures a mere mistake, defect or omission where the order is otherwise referenced by DIN; the assessee's objection also had not been raised before the first appellate authority. On the penalty for cash acceptance, the Tribunal held that section 269SS applies only to receipt of a loan or deposit, not to repayment of earlier advances, but the factual nature of the receipts was not established on record. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee one further opportunity to produce evidence.
ITAT held that omission to mention a Document Identification Number in the initiating notice did not invalidate the proceeding, because the retrospective validation under section 292BA cures a mere mistake, defect or omission where the order is otherwise referenced by DIN; the assessee's objection also had not been raised before the first appellate authority. On the penalty for cash acceptance, the Tribunal held that section 269SS applies only to receipt of a loan or deposit, not to repayment of earlier advances, but the factual nature of the receipts was not established on record. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee one further opportunity to produce evidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
