Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
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...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
