Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Validity of assessment order - Violation of Stay Order against the operation of a notification extending the period of limitation - The High Court acknowledges the petitioner's contention regarding the stay order. It notes that the impugned order was indeed passed during the pendency of a stay against the operation of the notification extending the period of limitation. This is a violation of the stay order, constituting a procedural irregularity. - Regarding the jurisdictional conflict, the Court concluded that without notification for cross-empowerment, authorities from one jurisdiction cannot initiate proceedings against an assessee assigned to the other jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned order was quashed, with liberty given to the State authorities to proceed in accordance with established legal principles.
Validity of assessment order - Violation of Stay Order against the operation of a notification extending the period of limitation - The High Court acknowledges the petitioner's contention regarding the stay order. It notes that the impugned order was indeed passed during the pendency of a stay against the operation of the notification extending the period of limitation. This is a violation of the stay order, constituting a procedural irregularity. - Regarding the jurisdictional conflict, the Court concluded that without notification for cross-empowerment, authorities from one jurisdiction cannot initiate proceedings against an assessee assigned to the other jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned order was quashed, with liberty given to the State authorities to proceed in accordance with established legal principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
