Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
