Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Page of 4782
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
561 to 580 of 95636 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court rejected the appeal filed by the applicant due to lack of reasons for enhancing turnover, non-consideration of material evidence, and failure to obtain Form 31 from Trade Tax Department. The Court upheld the decision to restore the assessment by the Assessing Authority, citing documentary evidence of sales on credit. The Tribunal considered all evidence, including survey slips, and found the applicant evaded tax. The Court dismissed the appeal for recall, noting lack of appearance by the applicant's counsel. No extraneous considerations were found. The Court cited legal precedent limiting its interference to questions of law. The revision was dismissed for lacking merit.
The High Court rejected the appeal filed by the applicant due to lack of reasons for enhancing turnover, non-consideration of material evidence, and failure to obtain Form 31 from Trade Tax Department. The Court upheld the decision to restore the assessment by the Assessing Authority, citing documentary evidence of sales on credit. The Tribunal considered all evidence, including survey slips, and found the applicant evaded tax. The Court dismissed the appeal for recall, noting lack of appearance by the applicant's counsel. No extraneous considerations were found. The Court cited legal precedent limiting its interference to questions of law. The revision was dismissed for lacking merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.