Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Revision u/s 264 - Claiming benefit of DTAA - refund of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) which was paid wrongly - This was not a case where a deduction was made u/s 195 towards tax on payments made to a non-resident and the parties had agreed that the deducting resident entity would bear the tax liability by compensating the non-resident by a proportional top up. Therefore, Section 248 is clearly inapplicable. The second ground on which the revision petition was rejected is also consequently unsustainable. - Pr.CIT directed to reconsider the matter u/s 264 - HC
Revision u/s 264 - Claiming benefit of DTAA - refund of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) which was paid wrongly - This was not a case where a deduction was made u/s 195 towards tax on payments made to a non-resident and the parties had agreed that the deducting resident entity would bear the tax liability by compensating the non-resident by a proportional top up. Therefore, Section 248 is clearly inapplicable. The second ground on which the revision petition was rejected is also consequently unsustainable. - Pr.CIT directed to reconsider the matter u/s 264 - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
