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...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96177 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Doctrine of promissory estoppel - Benefit under incentive Scheme - Scenarios of new Acts replacing the VAT Act, ensuring entitlement despite the GST regime. - The High court found that the petitioner fulfilled conditions of the scheme and was entitled to benefits. Past disbursements under the scheme, including GST components, supported this entitlement. The respondent's refusal to disburse the rest of the amount was unjustified. - Clause 19.2 of the scheme was interpreted to cover scenarios where the VAT Act is replaced by any other Act, ensuring continued entitlement despite changes in taxation regimes. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the GST Act replaced multiple statutes, holding that only the VAT Act was specifically mentioned in Clause 19.2.
Doctrine of promissory estoppel - Benefit under incentive Scheme - Scenarios of new Acts replacing the VAT Act, ensuring entitlement despite the GST regime. - The High court found that the petitioner fulfilled conditions of the scheme and was entitled to benefits. Past disbursements under the scheme, including GST components, supported this entitlement. The respondent's refusal to disburse the rest of the amount was unjustified. - Clause 19.2 of the scheme was interpreted to cover scenarios where the VAT Act is replaced by any other Act, ensuring continued entitlement despite changes in taxation regimes. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the GST Act replaced multiple statutes, holding that only the VAT Act was specifically mentioned in Clause 19.2.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
