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...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Dishonour of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - The only defence, which has been taken by the petitioner-convict during trial was that the cheques were issued in good faith because of friendship of him with the complainant. - The High Court found that the oral evidence is not rebutted by the petitioner/ accused/ convict by adducing evidence even to rebut the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. Though the petitioner/ accused/ convict, in cross-examination of complainant C.W.-1, this question was put up that no income tax return was filed by the complainant; but the same fact is not rebutted by the accused/ convict/ petitioner by adducing evidence in rebuttal. - The revision petition against the order of trial court dismissed.
Dishonour of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - The only defence, which has been taken by the petitioner-convict during trial was that the cheques were issued in good faith because of friendship of him with the complainant. - The High Court found that the oral evidence is not rebutted by the petitioner/ accused/ convict by adducing evidence even to rebut the presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. Though the petitioner/ accused/ convict, in cross-examination of complainant C.W.-1, this question was put up that no income tax return was filed by the complainant; but the same fact is not rebutted by the accused/ convict/ petitioner by adducing evidence in rebuttal. - The revision petition against the order of trial court dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
