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...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Availment of wrongful credit - bonafide mistake - The High Court observed that the mistake made by the appellants was inadvertent, and despite the acknowledgment of the error by the adjudicating authority, the demand was confirmed without providing any guidance or assistance to rectify the error. Considering previous legal precedents and the transitional phase of legislation, the court directed the authorities to enable the appellants to rectify the mistake and submit the correct form within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the Nodal Officer of IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism was directed to facilitate the filing process and provide options for manual rectification if necessary.
Availment of wrongful credit - bonafide mistake - The High Court observed that the mistake made by the appellants was inadvertent, and despite the acknowledgment of the error by the adjudicating authority, the demand was confirmed without providing any guidance or assistance to rectify the error. Considering previous legal precedents and the transitional phase of legislation, the court directed the authorities to enable the appellants to rectify the mistake and submit the correct form within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the Nodal Officer of IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism was directed to facilitate the filing process and provide options for manual rectification if necessary.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.