Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Release of the Amount Seized along with interest u/s 132B(4) read with Rule 119A - Scope of the term 'shall release' - The High court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest if the assessing authority, upon examination, finds that the seized amount was duly explained and not required for satisfying any existing or likely tax demand. - The court interpreted the statutory provisions as directory, not mandatory, stating that the assessing authority's failure to decide within 120 days does not automatically entitle the petitioner to the release of the seized amount. - The writ petition was disposed of without granting the writ of Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner. Instead, the court directed the Assessing Authority to decide on the petitioner's application within two weeks, ensuring a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioner.
Release of the Amount Seized along with interest u/s 132B(4) read with Rule 119A - Scope of the term 'shall release' - The High court held that the petitioner is entitled to interest if the assessing authority, upon examination, finds that the seized amount was duly explained and not required for satisfying any existing or likely tax demand. - The court interpreted the statutory provisions as directory, not mandatory, stating that the assessing authority's failure to decide within 120 days does not automatically entitle the petitioner to the release of the seized amount. - The writ petition was disposed of without granting the writ of Mandamus as prayed for by the petitioner. Instead, the court directed the Assessing Authority to decide on the petitioner's application within two weeks, ensuring a reasoned and speaking order after hearing the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4886 
