Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 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 involved the maintainability of rectification applications u/s 35C of the Central Excise Act. The CESTAT held that orders under 35C are final, not deciding references. Referring to previous rulings, the Tribunal established that rectification applications for orders under 35C are not maintainable. The argument that a Larger Bench's order should be considered final due to Division Bench compliance was rejected. Consequently, rectification applications for mistakes in an interim order were deemed not maintainable, leading to the rejection of five such applications.
The case involved the maintainability of rectification applications u/s 35C of the Central Excise Act. The CESTAT held that orders under 35C are final, not deciding references. Referring to previous rulings, the Tribunal established that rectification applications for orders under 35C are not maintainable. The argument that a Larger Bench's order should be considered final due to Division Bench compliance was rejected. Consequently, rectification applications for mistakes in an interim order were deemed not maintainable, leading to the rejection of five such applications.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.