Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the findings of the Single Judge on the limitation period for a suit. The appellant did not dispute the legal findings that the deposit of TDS triggers a fresh limitation period u/s 19 of the Act of 1963. The appellant raised a factual dispute regarding a transaction reflected in the TDS certificate, claiming it pertained to a separate transaction. The court rejected this claim as it was not raised before the Single Judge. The court held that the Single Judge's conclusion based on the TDS certificate was in line with the evidence and law. The court dismissed the appeal and pending applications, affirming the Single Judge's decision on the limitation issue.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the findings of the Single Judge on the limitation period for a suit. The appellant did not dispute the legal findings that the deposit of TDS triggers a fresh limitation period u/s 19 of the Act of 1963. The appellant raised a factual dispute regarding a transaction reflected in the TDS certificate, claiming it pertained to a separate transaction. The court rejected this claim as it was not raised before the Single Judge. The court held that the Single Judge's conclusion based on the TDS certificate was in line with the evidence and law. The court dismissed the appeal and pending applications, affirming the Single Judge's decision on the limitation issue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
