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...
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction was declined where the taxpayer's statutory appeal against a GST demand had become time-barred. The notes state that the taxpayer submitted a physical reply to the show-cause notice because the portal had earlier been handled by a chartered accountant, but the final order recorded no reply and confirmed the demand. A rectification application under the GST Act remained pending but also appeared time-barred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that expiry of the statutory appellate limitation did not justify exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
Extraordinary writ jurisdiction was declined where the taxpayer's statutory appeal against a GST demand had become time-barred. The notes state that the taxpayer submitted a physical reply to the show-cause notice because the portal had earlier been handled by a chartered accountant, but the final order recorded no reply and confirmed the demand. A rectification application under the GST Act remained pending but also appeared time-barred. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that expiry of the statutory appellate limitation did not justify exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.