Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 95705 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 88(3) of the GST enactments makes directors of a private company in liquidation jointly and severally liable for unrecovered tax dues incurred during their tenure, unless they establish before the Commissioner that non-recovery was not caused by their gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty. The notes state that a director's later retirement from an associated partnership does not by itself prevent recovery from that firm's accounts where the person was a partner during the default period. They also address recovery from related entities: interchanged family management and formation of a subsequent company to avoid arrears may justify examination of whether the corporate veil should be lifted.
Section 88(3) of the GST enactments makes directors of a private company in liquidation jointly and severally liable for unrecovered tax dues incurred during their tenure, unless they establish before the Commissioner that non-recovery was not caused by their gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty. The notes state that a director's later retirement from an associated partnership does not by itself prevent recovery from that firm's accounts where the person was a partner during the default period. They also address recovery from related entities: interchanged family management and formation of a subsequent company to avoid arrears may justify examination of whether the corporate veil should be lifted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.