Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Pre-Deposit - Adjustment of various deposits made by entities during the course of investigation - The appellant argued that since they were associated with these entities and deposits were made with No Objection Certificates, these amounts should be adjusted for the pre-deposit requirement. However, the High court upheld the decision of the CESTAT, emphasizing that Section 129E places the responsibility of pre-deposit solely on the appellant, and deposits made by other entities cannot be considered for this purpose. The court's decision was based on the clear language of the provision, and it found no reason to interfere with the CESTAT's order. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
Pre-Deposit - Adjustment of various deposits made by entities during the course of investigation - The appellant argued that since they were associated with these entities and deposits were made with No Objection Certificates, these amounts should be adjusted for the pre-deposit requirement. However, the High court upheld the decision of the CESTAT, emphasizing that Section 129E places the responsibility of pre-deposit solely on the appellant, and deposits made by other entities cannot be considered for this purpose. The court's decision was based on the clear language of the provision, and it found no reason to interfere with the CESTAT's order. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
