Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Compounding of offences for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source under Sections 276B and 278B was restored where stipulated charges were not paid within the prescribed period but were subsequently deposited in full. Financial difficulties and the company's subsequent liquidation were treated as bona fide reasons for the delay. The High Court extended the payment period up to the actual date of deposit, set aside rejection of the compounding applications, and made the earlier compounding order effective until that date. Restoration remained subject to additional costs payable to the Department, which could seek withdrawal of the deposited compounding charges. A second compounding application was unnecessary.
Compounding of offences for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source under Sections 276B and 278B was restored where stipulated charges were not paid within the prescribed period but were subsequently deposited in full. Financial difficulties and the company's subsequent liquidation were treated as bona fide reasons for the delay. The High Court extended the payment period up to the actual date of deposit, set aside rejection of the compounding applications, and made the earlier compounding order effective until that date. Restoration remained subject to additional costs payable to the Department, which could seek withdrawal of the deposited compounding charges. A second compounding application was unnecessary.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
