Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4816
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96301 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.