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" ?
A partnership firm's crystallised tax dues may be recovered by issuing a garnishee notice against a partner's bank account when the recovery is directed under Section 79(1)(c)(i), not Section 83. The challenge failed because the impugned communication was on its face a recovery step after liability had crystallised, the demand against the firm itself had not been challenged, and partners are personally liable for the firm's dues. On those facts, no infirmity was found in the notice to the bank, and writ interference was unwarranted.
A partnership firm's crystallised tax dues may be recovered by issuing a garnishee notice against a partner's bank account when the recovery is directed under Section 79(1)(c)(i), not Section 83. The challenge failed because the impugned communication was on its face a recovery step after liability had crystallised, the demand against the firm itself had not been challenged, and partners are personally liable for the firm's dues. On those facts, no infirmity was found in the notice to the bank, and writ interference was unwarranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.