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...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
