Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1201 to 1220 of 96046 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.