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...
Scientific research association approval requires continuing SIRO status, annual donation reporting, and donor certificates for the approved foundatio...
Scientific research institution approval is conditional on SIRO recognition, annual donation reporting, donor certification, and prescribed compliance...
Page of 4878
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 97553 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 considered the validity of reopening an assessment based on excess funds not being part of an "approved refund" and thus subject to taxation. The Court noted that the approval to hold the fund was withdrawn only from the date of the order, not before. The Tribunal found that the withdrawal of approval would only take effect from the date of the order, not earlier. Therefore, the notice issued for reopening the assessment was deemed invalid as the approval was still in effect at the time. The Tribunal rightly set aside the notice and subsequent reassessment order due to the lack of communication regarding the withdrawal of approval by the Commissioner.
The High Court considered the validity of reopening an assessment based on excess funds not being part of an "approved refund" and thus subject to taxation. The Court noted that the approval to hold the fund was withdrawn only from the date of the order, not before. The Tribunal found that the withdrawal of approval would only take effect from the date of the order, not earlier. Therefore, the notice issued for reopening the assessment was deemed invalid as the approval was still in effect at the time. The Tribunal rightly set aside the notice and subsequent reassessment order due to the lack of communication regarding the withdrawal of approval by the Commissioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.