Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
521 to 540 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case involves issues related to exemption u/s. 11, 12 & 13. The appellant lacked registration u/s. 12A, and no pending appeal existed. The status of the appellant as a "State" was scrutinized. The ITAT found the Assessing Officer's interpretation of limiting examination to registration u/s. 12A as flawed. The appellant, a renowned government hospital, was denied benefits due to lack of registration, despite eligibility under other provisions. The ITAT restored the case for fresh assessment, permitting the appellant to raise new claims. Citing Goetze (India) Limited case, the AO was directed to consider any fresh claim, even if not previously raised. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The case involves issues related to exemption u/s. 11, 12 & 13. The appellant lacked registration u/s. 12A, and no pending appeal existed. The status of the appellant as a "State" was scrutinized. The ITAT found the Assessing Officer's interpretation of limiting examination to registration u/s. 12A as flawed. The appellant, a renowned government hospital, was denied benefits due to lack of registration, despite eligibility under other provisions. The ITAT restored the case for fresh assessment, permitting the appellant to raise new claims. Citing Goetze (India) Limited case, the AO was directed to consider any fresh claim, even if not previously raised. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
