Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the objection of the assessee regarding low tax effect was not sustainable. The addition made u/s 68 for bogus LTCG and unexplained cash credits involved penny stocks. The Tribunal cannot determine if a share is a penny stock, which is decided by BSE or investigation agencies. The transaction involved shares identified as penny stocks by the Investigation Directorate. The Tribunal found no merit in the objections raised by the assessee and dismissed the request to recall the order. The power u/s 254(2) cannot be used to review the order on its merits. The assessee's application is dismissed, citing judicial discipline and referring to a decision by the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal held that the objection of the assessee regarding low tax effect was not sustainable. The addition made u/s 68 for bogus LTCG and unexplained cash credits involved penny stocks. The Tribunal cannot determine if a share is a penny stock, which is decided by BSE or investigation agencies. The transaction involved shares identified as penny stocks by the Investigation Directorate. The Tribunal found no merit in the objections raised by the assessee and dismissed the request to recall the order. The power u/s 254(2) cannot be used to review the order on its merits. The assessee's application is dismissed, citing judicial discipline and referring to a decision by the Supreme Court.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.