Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Prosecution proceedings u/s 279(1) - TDS not deposited in the government treasury within the prescribed statutory time - once there was a non-deposit, the necessary consequences shall follow including the prosecution. - when the petitioner(s) approached the High Court to set aside the sanction order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the time the learned Magistrate had already taken the cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner(s). Therefore, the High Court was justified in observing that the Company and the person in charge are required to face the trial. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. - SC
Prosecution proceedings u/s 279(1) - TDS not deposited in the government treasury within the prescribed statutory time - once there was a non-deposit, the necessary consequences shall follow including the prosecution. - when the petitioner(s) approached the High Court to set aside the sanction order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the time the learned Magistrate had already taken the cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner(s). Therefore, the High Court was justified in observing that the Company and the person in charge are required to face the trial. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. - SC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
