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...
Eligibility to act as an authorised representative is distinct from eligibility for registration as an Income Tax Practitioner. Section 515 read with Rule 252 governs who may appear as an authorised representative, while Rules 255 to 257 govern entry in the register and grant of a certificate of registration. The one-year practice requirement in Rule 257 applies only to registration; it does not restrict the separate right to appear as a representative. As the applicant had not completed one year's practice on the date of application, and the rule itself was not challenged, the return of the application was held lawful and a fresh application was permitted after completion of the prescribed period.
Eligibility to act as an authorised representative is distinct from eligibility for registration as an Income Tax Practitioner. Section 515 read with Rule 252 governs who may appear as an authorised representative, while Rules 255 to 257 govern entry in the register and grant of a certificate of registration. The one-year practice requirement in Rule 257 applies only to registration; it does not restrict the separate right to appear as a representative. As the applicant had not completed one year's practice on the date of application, and the rule itself was not challenged, the return of the application was held lawful and a fresh application was permitted after completion of the prescribed period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.