Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
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...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1061 to 1080 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Seeking review of order - error apparent on the face of record or not - The court acknowledged the existence of the amendment to Paragraph 9.3 of the Handbook of Procedures and recognized its relevance to the case. However, it concluded that the amendment had been duly considered in the earlier order, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record regarding its application. In line with the respondents' argument, the court emphasized that a review cannot be used as a disguised appeal. It cited a Supreme Court decision that cautioned against exceeding jurisdiction in review applications and reiterated the principle that a review cannot reevaluate evidence already considered in the main petition.
Seeking review of order - error apparent on the face of record or not - The court acknowledged the existence of the amendment to Paragraph 9.3 of the Handbook of Procedures and recognized its relevance to the case. However, it concluded that the amendment had been duly considered in the earlier order, and there was no error apparent on the face of the record regarding its application. In line with the respondents' argument, the court emphasized that a review cannot be used as a disguised appeal. It cited a Supreme Court decision that cautioned against exceeding jurisdiction in review applications and reiterated the principle that a review cannot reevaluate evidence already considered in the main petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
