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...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The High Court considered the maintainability of a review petition based on a subsequent judgment and the condonation of a 619-day delay in filing the civil review petition. The appellant attributed the delay to the Counsel's actions. The main issue was the entitlement of exemption u/s 80-P(2)(a)(i) and the taxability of transfer charges received by the Samiti. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision regarding the nature of transfer charges. The Court held that a decision based on a question of law, if subsequently reversed or modified by a superior court, does not form grounds for review. The Court noted a split verdict in another Supreme Court case. The Court emphasized that entertaining a review petition ignoring statutory provisions would create uncertainty. Consequently, the appeal for condonation of the delay in filing the civil review petition was dismissed.
The High Court considered the maintainability of a review petition based on a subsequent judgment and the condonation of a 619-day delay in filing the civil review petition. The appellant attributed the delay to the Counsel's actions. The main issue was the entitlement of exemption u/s 80-P(2)(a)(i) and the taxability of transfer charges received by the Samiti. The Court referred to a Supreme Court decision regarding the nature of transfer charges. The Court held that a decision based on a question of law, if subsequently reversed or modified by a superior court, does not form grounds for review. The Court noted a split verdict in another Supreme Court case. The Court emphasized that entertaining a review petition ignoring statutory provisions would create uncertainty. Consequently, the appeal for condonation of the delay in filing the civil review petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.