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...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Prayer of Out-of-turn disposal of appeal due to indefinite deferment of proceedings - Piecemeal adjudication - The appellant sought urgent disposal of the appeal, arguing that the delay was jeopardizing their interests, while the respondent argued that the delay was not detrimental as liability was yet to be determined. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the adjudicating authority to dispose of the notice within four weeks, considering the impending liquidation of the appellant-company and the limited scope of the stay order issued by the Bombay High Court.
Prayer of Out-of-turn disposal of appeal due to indefinite deferment of proceedings - Piecemeal adjudication - The appellant sought urgent disposal of the appeal, arguing that the delay was jeopardizing their interests, while the respondent argued that the delay was not detrimental as liability was yet to be determined. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the adjudicating authority to dispose of the notice within four weeks, considering the impending liquidation of the appellant-company and the limited scope of the stay order issued by the Bombay High Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.