Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95916 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Clause 10(e) of the CBDT circular on low-tax-effect appeals was construed as an exception covering enforcement agencies akin to CBI, ED, DRI, SFIO and DGGI, rather than those names alone. On that interpretation, the VAT department was treated as falling within the exception because it functioned as an enforcement agency. The Tribunal therefore misread the circular by excluding VAT merely because it was not expressly named. The order rejecting the Revenue's rectification application was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Tribunal for decision on merits after hearing both sides.
Clause 10(e) of the CBDT circular on low-tax-effect appeals was construed as an exception covering enforcement agencies akin to CBI, ED, DRI, SFIO and DGGI, rather than those names alone. On that interpretation, the VAT department was treated as falling within the exception because it functioned as an enforcement agency. The Tribunal therefore misread the circular by excluding VAT merely because it was not expressly named. The order rejecting the Revenue's rectification application was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Tribunal for decision on merits after hearing both sides.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
