Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95872 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 held that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 for settlement of tax arrears for the assessment year 2015-16 and for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05. The court emphasized that the appellant should receive the benefit of the method of computation of the Amnesty amount as per the Scheme. The court considered the pendency of a Review Petition and interim orders staying recovery proceedings as relevant factors. The payments made by the appellant during the litigation were deemed provisional and subject to the final outcome. The appeals were disposed of by setting aside previous judgments, quashing orders and demand notices, and declaring the liability of the appellant as settled under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 through a payment of Rs. 3,19,32,523. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
The High Court held that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 for settlement of tax arrears for the assessment year 2015-16 and for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05. The court emphasized that the appellant should receive the benefit of the method of computation of the Amnesty amount as per the Scheme. The court considered the pendency of a Review Petition and interim orders staying recovery proceedings as relevant factors. The payments made by the appellant during the litigation were deemed provisional and subject to the final outcome. The appeals were disposed of by setting aside previous judgments, quashing orders and demand notices, and declaring the liability of the appellant as settled under the Amnesty Scheme, 2020 through a payment of Rs. 3,19,32,523. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.