Judgement

The Madras High Court upholds interest and a Rs. 8.95 lakh penalty after the company admitted ineligible ITC and failed to opt for reduced-penalty provisions.

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against Section 74 GST Order, Upholds Rs. 8.95 Lakh Penalty

Anti-Profiteering Liability Restricted to Rs. 4.57 Lakh as Tribunal Holds Interest and Penalty Provisions Prospective

GST Appellate Tribunal Upholds Limited Profiteering, Rejects Interest and Penalty Claims

The ITAT Chennai has held that Penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be applied when quantum addition are made by applying peak credit theory.

Penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be applied when quantum addition are made by applying peak credit theory

Circulars

CBIC Clarification on applicability of demand and penalty provisions under CGST ACT in respect of transactions involving fake invoices

Articles

KSCAA urges Finance Minister to Rationalise Penalty provisions under Section 270AA of IT Act

Explore Our Blogs

Stay updated with the latest insights, tips, and industry trends from our experts

Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Against Section 74 GST Order, Upholds Rs. 8.95 Lakh Penalty

GST Appellate Tribunal Upholds Limited Profiteering, Rejects Interest and Penalty Claims

Penalty provisions u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be applied when quantum addition are made by applying peak credit theory

CBIC Clarification on applicability of demand and penalty provisions under CGST ACT in respect of transactions involving fake invoices

KSCAA urges Finance Minister to Rationalise Penalty provisions under Section 270AA of IT Act