Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
Regular Approval u/s 80G(5) - The High Court found that while the respondents had the authority to extend the time limit, there was no valid reason provided for the differential treatment between existing and new trusts regarding Section 80G approval. The court noted that the classification lacked a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, rendering it arbitrary and unconstitutional. - The court held that the petitioners did not have an inherent right to claim further extensions of time, even if an initial extension was granted by the respondents. The extension of time was considered an act of benevolence rather than a creation of vested rights on the part of the petitioners.
Regular Approval u/s 80G(5) - The High Court found that while the respondents had the authority to extend the time limit, there was no valid reason provided for the differential treatment between existing and new trusts regarding Section 80G approval. The court noted that the classification lacked a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, rendering it arbitrary and unconstitutional. - The court held that the petitioners did not have an inherent right to claim further extensions of time, even if an initial extension was granted by the respondents. The extension of time was considered an act of benevolence rather than a creation of vested rights on the part of the petitioners.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
