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" ?
Review petition - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Tribunal sustaining the levy without providing an opportunity of hearing - Review applicant had paid entire tax amount for assessment years in question - Held that review applicant has not filed applications based on new facts - Materials collected during search never put to review applicant prior to filing voluntary revised returns - No deliberate or wilful omission on part of review applicant - Review applicant on same footing as Dr. R. Gopalakrishnan entitled to same relief - Plea of review applicant being professional doctor rendering service to downtrodden people and levying penalty would affect mental status and professional career appears bona fide and reasonable, merits acceptance - Judgment recalled, Tax Case Appeals disposed of by setting aside order.
Review petition - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Tribunal sustaining the levy without providing an opportunity of hearing - Review applicant had paid entire tax amount for assessment years in question - Held that review applicant has not filed applications based on new facts - Materials collected during search never put to review applicant prior to filing voluntary revised returns - No deliberate or wilful omission on part of review applicant - Review applicant on same footing as Dr. R. Gopalakrishnan entitled to same relief - Plea of review applicant being professional doctor rendering service to downtrodden people and levying penalty would affect mental status and professional career appears bona fide and reasonable, merits acceptance - Judgment recalled, Tax Case Appeals disposed of by setting aside order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.