Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Customs Assessment Portal centralises classification and valuation guidance to support consistent, transparent and informed compliance across stakehol...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rejecting registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) - name mismatch between the certificate of registration issued by the Charity Commissioner, Vadodara and the PAN database - The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that the trust's objectives aimed at the general public utility and weren't solely for the benefit of a particular community. - The Appellate Tribunal found the appellant's explanation reasonable and directed the Commissioner to reevaluate the issue considering the detailed submissions provided by the appellant. They concluded that the name mismatch alone wasn't sufficient grounds for rejection. - In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Commissioner to reevaluate both the name mismatch and the nature of the trust's activities for eligibility under Section 12AA.
Rejecting registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(iii) - name mismatch between the certificate of registration issued by the Charity Commissioner, Vadodara and the PAN database - The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that the trust's objectives aimed at the general public utility and weren't solely for the benefit of a particular community. - The Appellate Tribunal found the appellant's explanation reasonable and directed the Commissioner to reevaluate the issue considering the detailed submissions provided by the appellant. They concluded that the name mismatch alone wasn't sufficient grounds for rejection. - In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Commissioner to reevaluate both the name mismatch and the nature of the trust's activities for eligibility under Section 12AA.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.