Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
