Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Page of 4886
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97710 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Questions of law proposed in an appeal from a Tribunal's...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengeable.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Questions of law proposed in an appeal from a Tribunal's miscellaneous-application order must arise from that order, rather than from an unaltered finding in the original appellate order. Where the miscellaneous order only modified the terms of remand and left intact the finding that an accepted sale-and-purchase software transaction subject to arm's length price determination did not give rise to a dependent agent permanent establishment issue, challenges to that finding fell outside the appeal's scope. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, while its right to challenge the original Tribunal order in accordance with law remained open.
Questions of law proposed in an appeal from a Tribunal's miscellaneous-application order must arise from that order, rather than from an unaltered finding in the original appellate order. Where the miscellaneous order only modified the terms of remand and left intact the finding that an accepted sale-and-purchase software transaction subject to arm's length price determination did not give rise to a dependent agent permanent establishment issue, challenges to that finding fell outside the appeal's scope. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, while its right to challenge the original Tribunal order in accordance with law remained open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.