Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95633 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Finality of an earlier judicial determination prevented the Department from reopening the applicable compounding guidelines when calculating the compounding fee. The article explains that a direction to quantify the fee required calculation rather than fresh adjudication, and that statutory instructions on compounding could not displace a binding inter partes finding that the 2008 CBDT Guidelines governed the application. It further notes that the 2024 Guidelines on fresh applications were limited to applications rejected for specified curable defects and did not cover applications rejected on merits. The fee was therefore to be recomputed under the 2008 Guidelines after crediting the amount already paid.
Finality of an earlier judicial determination prevented the Department from reopening the applicable compounding guidelines when calculating the compounding fee. The article explains that a direction to quantify the fee required calculation rather than fresh adjudication, and that statutory instructions on compounding could not displace a binding inter partes finding that the 2008 CBDT Guidelines governed the application. It further notes that the 2024 Guidelines on fresh applications were limited to applications rejected for specified curable defects and did not cover applications rejected on merits. The fee was therefore to be recomputed under the 2008 Guidelines after crediting the amount already paid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
