Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
