Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
