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...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where a taxpayer had diligently pursued rectification within time and filed the statutory challenge within three months of its rejection, the HC held that limitation could not be computed only from the original assessment order. The appellate authority should not have rejected the challenge as time-barred in those circumstances, and if the absence of a specific challenge to the rectification rejection was treated as a defect, amendment ought to have been permitted instead of dismissal on a hyper-technical ground. The limitation-based rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision on merits.
Where a taxpayer had diligently pursued rectification within time and filed the statutory challenge within three months of its rejection, the HC held that limitation could not be computed only from the original assessment order. The appellate authority should not have rejected the challenge as time-barred in those circumstances, and if the absence of a specific challenge to the rectification rejection was treated as a defect, amendment ought to have been permitted instead of dismissal on a hyper-technical ground. The limitation-based rejection was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.