Independent manufacturing undertaking eligibility preserves Section 80IA/80IB deductions, while machinery kept ready for use qualifies for depreciatio...
Assessing Officer Satisfaction Requirement Bars Penalty for Cash Receipt in Immovable-Property Sale Cases Where Initiation Lacks Recorded Satisfaction...
Self-assessed import entries remain appealable, while bona fide classification disputes without misdeclaration cannot justify confiscation or penaltie...
Page of 4879
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 97567 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Settlement applications filed by 30 September 2021 required only...
Settlement application eligibility requires a pending assessment when filed, preventing an extra prior-eligibility condition from blocking consideration.
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
Settlement applications filed by 30 September 2021 required only that the relevant assessment case be pending on the application date; no statutory requirement imposed eligibility by an earlier date. The Board's deadline-relaxation power could not add a prior-eligibility condition absent from the statutory scheme. Where live, unadjudicated notices under sections 153A or 143(2) existed, eligibility could not depend on delayed notice issuance, and differing treatment of years arising from the same search lacked a rational basis. Paragraph 4(i) and the corresponding press release were read down; rejected applications were restored for decision on merits, with consequential assessments subject to that decision. The constitutional challenge to section 245C(5) remained open.
Settlement applications filed by 30 September 2021 required only that the relevant assessment case be pending on the application date; no statutory requirement imposed eligibility by an earlier date. The Board's deadline-relaxation power could not add a prior-eligibility condition absent from the statutory scheme. Where live, unadjudicated notices under sections 153A or 143(2) existed, eligibility could not depend on delayed notice issuance, and differing treatment of years arising from the same search lacked a rational basis. Paragraph 4(i) and the corresponding press release were read down; rejected applications were restored for decision on merits, with consequential assessments subject to that decision. The constitutional challenge to section 245C(5) remained open.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4879 
