Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6361 to 6380 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Substitution of attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit is not available as a general matter under Rule 5 of the 2013 Possession Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that the controlling question is statutory authority, not whether the proposed security is of equivalent value, and found no wider power in the 2002 Act or the Rules to permit such replacement outside the specified contingencies. It followed earlier tribunal authority and distinguished consent-based or rule-ignorant orders cited by the applicant. As the case did not fall within Rule 5(5) or Rule 5(6), the request for substitution was dismissed.
Substitution of attached immovable property with a demand draft or fixed deposit is not available as a general matter under Rule 5 of the 2013 Possession Rules. The Tribunal reasoned that the controlling question is statutory authority, not whether the proposed security is of equivalent value, and found no wider power in the 2002 Act or the Rules to permit such replacement outside the specified contingencies. It followed earlier tribunal authority and distinguished consent-based or rule-ignorant orders cited by the applicant. As the case did not fall within Rule 5(5) or Rule 5(6), the request for substitution was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
