Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
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...
Page of 4780
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95593 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Interim release of seized cash to the Income Tax Department was treated as a protective arrangement pending determination of its source, tax liability and ownership. The Trial Court required an indemnity bond and deposit of the amount in a nationalised bank fixed deposit with automatic renewal, preserving the parties' positions until final adjudication. The High Court found that this arrangement caused no prejudice warranting intervention under Articles 226 and 227, as all substantive issues remained open. The criminal petition challenging the interim arrangement was dismissed, while the income-tax proceedings were to be concluded expeditiously and further relief could be sought before the Trial Court.
Interim release of seized cash to the Income Tax Department was treated as a protective arrangement pending determination of its source, tax liability and ownership. The Trial Court required an indemnity bond and deposit of the amount in a nationalised bank fixed deposit with automatic renewal, preserving the parties' positions until final adjudication. The High Court found that this arrangement caused no prejudice warranting intervention under Articles 226 and 227, as all substantive issues remained open. The criminal petition challenging the interim arrangement was dismissed, while the income-tax proceedings were to be concluded expeditiously and further relief could be sought before the Trial Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.