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" ?
Benami transaction - orders barred by limitation - The provision imposes a ban upon the passing of an order beyond the period stipulated, a prohibition. It is a burden cast upon the respondent and one that the respondent must comply with, and prove that it has satisfied, within the statutory timeframe provided. In this case, it is of the view that this burden has not been discharged. In fact, the attempt to establish compliance is also lukewarm. - the prohibition imposed by the provisions of Section 26(7) will apply squarely in this case and the impugned orders cannot be said to have been passed within the period of limitation, as provided. Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders quashed. - HC
Benami transaction - orders barred by limitation - The provision imposes a ban upon the passing of an order beyond the period stipulated, a prohibition. It is a burden cast upon the respondent and one that the respondent must comply with, and prove that it has satisfied, within the statutory timeframe provided. In this case, it is of the view that this burden has not been discharged. In fact, the attempt to establish compliance is also lukewarm. - the prohibition imposed by the provisions of Section 26(7) will apply squarely in this case and the impugned orders cannot be said to have been passed within the period of limitation, as provided. Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders quashed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
