Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
For GST first appeals, limitation runs from the actual communication of the adjudication order to the assessee. Where the assessee states that date, a presumption arises in its favour and the Revenue must rebut it with cogent material; failure to do so makes dismissal of the appeal as time-barred unsustainable. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction could be invoked despite an alternate statutory remedy because the appellate authority had ignored binding precedent and failed to record an independent finding on limitation. The impugned appellate orders were quashed and the matters remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the governing law on effective communication and limitation.
For GST first appeals, limitation runs from the actual communication of the adjudication order to the assessee. Where the assessee states that date, a presumption arises in its favour and the Revenue must rebut it with cogent material; failure to do so makes dismissal of the appeal as time-barred unsustainable. The Court also held that writ jurisdiction could be invoked despite an alternate statutory remedy because the appellate authority had ignored binding precedent and failed to record an independent finding on limitation. The impugned appellate orders were quashed and the matters remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the governing law on effective communication and limitation.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.