Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The High Court considered a challenge to a notice u/s 226(3) for attachment of joint saving accounts. The petitioners, secondary account holders, argued they were farmers who jointly cultivated land with their uncle and sold crops. They claimed no notice u/s 226(3)(iii) was given before attaching the account. The Court found that since the primary account holder was a defaulter, no separate notice was required for the secondary account holders. The notice must be sent to the defaulter, not joint account holders. The petition was dismissed, suggesting the petitioners seek legal recourse if they disagree with the attachment.
The High Court considered a challenge to a notice u/s 226(3) for attachment of joint saving accounts. The petitioners, secondary account holders, argued they were farmers who jointly cultivated land with their uncle and sold crops. They claimed no notice u/s 226(3)(iii) was given before attaching the account. The Court found that since the primary account holder was a defaulter, no separate notice was required for the secondary account holders. The notice must be sent to the defaulter, not joint account holders. The petition was dismissed, suggesting the petitioners seek legal recourse if they disagree with the attachment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
