Permanent establishment tests: independent subsidiary premises and principal-to-principal dealings did not create Indian taxability for offshore suppl...
Valuation Officer estimates govern property-value additions once statutory valuation is invoked, requiring fresh consideration of objections and compa...
Waiver of written show-cause notice may prevent a later procedural challenge after participation in customs adjudication, preserving statutory appella...
Retrospective invalidity of ocean-freight IGST supports refunds despite non-party status and prior credit utilisation, subject to authorised appeal gr...
Additional evidence in departmental appeals may include show-cause-notice material without introducing a new case where it merely corroborates existin...
Reasoned rectification orders require consideration of expenditure disclosed in income-tax returns, preventing revision based on incomplete income com...
Modified returns after business reorganisations cannot trigger fresh scrutiny once the original assessment was complete, invalidating related transfer...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 97820 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Impleadment of the appellant bank as Proposed 2nd Respondent, in main Company Appeal - necessary/proper party - The Tribunal noted that the bank's interest was protected under pari passu charge and not an exclusive charge. It further highlighted that the bank had previously acquiesced to decisions made without its impleadment, demonstrating that its participation was not crucial for the resolution of the main appeal. - It was determined that the first respondent/appellant was not entitled to possession once the lease expired. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for a right to stay based on investment in the property, citing lack of a valid, enduring lease agreement beyond the explicitly stated term.
Impleadment of the appellant bank as Proposed 2nd Respondent, in main Company Appeal - necessary/proper party - The Tribunal noted that the bank's interest was protected under pari passu charge and not an exclusive charge. It further highlighted that the bank had previously acquiesced to decisions made without its impleadment, demonstrating that its participation was not crucial for the resolution of the main appeal. - It was determined that the first respondent/appellant was not entitled to possession once the lease expired. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for a right to stay based on investment in the property, citing lack of a valid, enduring lease agreement beyond the explicitly stated term.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
