Income Declaration Scheme declarations can evidence share-capital sources, while round-tripped funds and cash-linked credits require further verificat...
Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Page of 4894
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 97862 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
SVLDRS - The court acknowledged that the petitioner failed to make the balance payment within the extended period due to financial constraints post-COVID-19. However, it emphasized that the petitioner did not provide substantial evidence of severe financial crunch, as claimed. - Citing a precedent set by the Supreme Court, the court affirmed that the time limit cannot be extended by the court as it would amount to modifying the scheme, a prerogative of the government or the respondent authority. The extension granted during the COVID-19 pandemic was within the authority of the government, not the court.
SVLDRS - The court acknowledged that the petitioner failed to make the balance payment within the extended period due to financial constraints post-COVID-19. However, it emphasized that the petitioner did not provide substantial evidence of severe financial crunch, as claimed. - Citing a precedent set by the Supreme Court, the court affirmed that the time limit cannot be extended by the court as it would amount to modifying the scheme, a prerogative of the government or the respondent authority. The extension granted during the COVID-19 pandemic was within the authority of the government, not the court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4894 
