Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Exemption from Pre-deposit - The petitioner argued that their request for exemption from pre-deposit was wrongly rejected, and they challenged the jurisdiction of imposing liability. The court, after considering the submissions and relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, directed the CIT (Appeals) to decide the appeal expeditiously without insisting on the pre-deposit. The court emphasized compliance with Notification and Instruction No. 1914 issued under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act. However, the judgment did not delve into the specifics of the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioner.
Exemption from Pre-deposit - The petitioner argued that their request for exemption from pre-deposit was wrongly rejected, and they challenged the jurisdiction of imposing liability. The court, after considering the submissions and relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, directed the CIT (Appeals) to decide the appeal expeditiously without insisting on the pre-deposit. The court emphasized compliance with Notification and Instruction No. 1914 issued under Section 220 of the Income Tax Act. However, the judgment did not delve into the specifics of the jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.