Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Uploading GST notices or orders solely in the Common Portal's "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab was not authorised service because the notified portal functions and Rules did not prescribe that tab as a statutory mode of service. Such uploading could not commence the appeal limitation period, particularly where the interface did not prominently disclose communications. E-mail service required transmission of the notice or order itself to the registered e-mail address; an intimation alone was insufficient. Ex parte proceedings based solely on invalid portal service were restored for reply and hearing, while affected appeals could be considered on merits. However, an assessee that replied to and contested a show-cause notice could not later challenge the resulting order solely for defective portal service.
Uploading GST notices or orders solely in the Common Portal's "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab was not authorised service because the notified portal functions and Rules did not prescribe that tab as a statutory mode of service. Such uploading could not commence the appeal limitation period, particularly where the interface did not prominently disclose communications. E-mail service required transmission of the notice or order itself to the registered e-mail address; an intimation alone was insufficient. Ex parte proceedings based solely on invalid portal service were restored for reply and hearing, while affected appeals could be considered on merits. However, an assessee that replied to and contested a show-cause notice could not later challenge the resulting order solely for defective portal service.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.