Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Disciplinary proceeding against the govt officer - Punishment of withholding of 10% of monthly pension for a period of three years - misconduct - failure to maintain absolute integrity - The Bombay High Court in 2024 quashed the punishment order dated April 26, 2013, against a petitioner, which had imposed a withholding of 10% of monthly pension for three years, as well as the judgment dated January 23, 2020, by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court found that the punishment was not sustainable due to the absence of proof of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss to the government, and that there was no violation of the specified Conduct Rules under which the petitioner was charged.
Disciplinary proceeding against the govt officer - Punishment of withholding of 10% of monthly pension for a period of three years - misconduct - failure to maintain absolute integrity - The Bombay High Court in 2024 quashed the punishment order dated April 26, 2013, against a petitioner, which had imposed a withholding of 10% of monthly pension for three years, as well as the judgment dated January 23, 2020, by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court found that the punishment was not sustainable due to the absence of proof of grave misconduct or pecuniary loss to the government, and that there was no violation of the specified Conduct Rules under which the petitioner was charged.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
