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...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1121 to 1140 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Proper officer - Jurisdiction of Initiate investigation proceedings by the Central GST and State GST authorities simultaneously - cross-empowerment - The Court found that in the absence of specific notifications enabling cross-empowerment, except for purposes related to tax refunds, the proceedings initiated by an authority (either Central or State) against taxpayers not assigned to them are without jurisdiction. - While the Court quashed the impugned proceedings for lacking jurisdiction, it also directed the respective authorities (Central or State) to whom the petitioners are administratively assigned to initiate fresh proceedings, if warranted, in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. The period during which the impugned proceedings were initiated and pending litigation was to be excluded from the calculation of any limitation period for initiating new proceedings.
Proper officer - Jurisdiction of Initiate investigation proceedings by the Central GST and State GST authorities simultaneously - cross-empowerment - The Court found that in the absence of specific notifications enabling cross-empowerment, except for purposes related to tax refunds, the proceedings initiated by an authority (either Central or State) against taxpayers not assigned to them are without jurisdiction. - While the Court quashed the impugned proceedings for lacking jurisdiction, it also directed the respective authorities (Central or State) to whom the petitioners are administratively assigned to initiate fresh proceedings, if warranted, in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. The period during which the impugned proceedings were initiated and pending litigation was to be excluded from the calculation of any limitation period for initiating new proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
