Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, a liability admitted during enquiry or investigation was not treated as final quantification of duty by itself. Eligibility required the duty payable in the pending matter to be quantified on or before the statutory cut-off date, and a partial admission during investigation could not satisfy that requirement. On that basis, the rejection of the declaration was upheld because the tax liability had not been finally quantified by 30.06.2019. The hearing before the Designated Committee arose only after eligibility was established, so no prior hearing was required where the declarant was ex facie ineligible.
Under the Sabka Vishwas Scheme, a liability admitted during enquiry or investigation was not treated as final quantification of duty by itself. Eligibility required the duty payable in the pending matter to be quantified on or before the statutory cut-off date, and a partial admission during investigation could not satisfy that requirement. On that basis, the rejection of the declaration was upheld because the tax liability had not been finally quantified by 30.06.2019. The hearing before the Designated Committee arose only after eligibility was established, so no prior hearing was required where the declarant was ex facie ineligible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.