Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
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...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 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 validity of an order passed by the Interim Board of Settlement was questioned following the abolishment of the Settlement Commission by the Finance Act, 2021. The issue revolved around the eligibility conditions concerning the extended cut-off date for filing an application u/s 245C. A High Court decision highlighted that the CBDT's notification, imposing additional conditions for eligibility, exceeded its powers u/s 119 of the Act. Consequently, the condition in the impugned notification was deemed invalid and unlawful. The Court ruled that the petitioner was indeed eligible to make an application, rendering the rejection of their application by the Interim Board of Settlement as illegal. The petitioner's settlement application should have been considered in accordance with the law.
The validity of an order passed by the Interim Board of Settlement was questioned following the abolishment of the Settlement Commission by the Finance Act, 2021. The issue revolved around the eligibility conditions concerning the extended cut-off date for filing an application u/s 245C. A High Court decision highlighted that the CBDT's notification, imposing additional conditions for eligibility, exceeded its powers u/s 119 of the Act. Consequently, the condition in the impugned notification was deemed invalid and unlawful. The Court ruled that the petitioner was indeed eligible to make an application, rendering the rejection of their application by the Interim Board of Settlement as illegal. The petitioner's settlement application should have been considered in accordance with the law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
