Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Assessment u/s 153A - Authorisation and assessment in case of search or requisition - Constitutional validity of Section 292CC - As however a fact that the CIT(A) and ITAT cannot consider the “reason to believe” or “reason to suspect” on merit, but was only for limited purpose. In view of the above, even if the explanations to the provisions referred to above have been added by the Finance Act, 2017, it cannot be said to be offending Articles 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India and otherwise retrospectivity of the amendment is permissible unless it remains otherwise unconstitutional. Thus, we summarily reject the challenge to the addition of Explanations to Sections 132(1), 132(1A) and 132A(1) of the Act of 1961 by the Finance Act of 2017 and hold it to be constitutionally valid. - HC
Assessment u/s 153A - Authorisation and assessment in case of search or requisition - Constitutional validity of Section 292CC - As however a fact that the CIT(A) and ITAT cannot consider the “reason to believe” or “reason to suspect” on merit, but was only for limited purpose. In view of the above, even if the explanations to the provisions referred to above have been added by the Finance Act, 2017, it cannot be said to be offending Articles 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution of India and otherwise retrospectivity of the amendment is permissible unless it remains otherwise unconstitutional. Thus, we summarily reject the challenge to the addition of Explanations to Sections 132(1), 132(1A) and 132A(1) of the Act of 1961 by the Finance Act of 2017 and hold it to be constitutionally valid. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
