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...
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...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96091 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
