Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Revision u/s 263 disallowing exemption u/s 11(1) for government grant received by assessee-Trust. ITAT concluded Principal CIT did not independently apply mind by calling office records, but acted on Assessing Officer's proposal to initiate Section 263 proceedings, rendering order liable to be set aside. ITAT based on consistency principle and absence of change in facts regarding Trust receiving government grant in earlier years accepted by Revenue for Section 11 exemption eligibility. HC found no erroneous or prejudicial assessment order u/s 143(3), dismissing appeal as no substantial question of law arose from ITAT order.
Revision u/s 263 disallowing exemption u/s 11(1) for government grant received by assessee-Trust. ITAT concluded Principal CIT did not independently apply mind by calling office records, but acted on Assessing Officer's proposal to initiate Section 263 proceedings, rendering order liable to be set aside. ITAT based on consistency principle and absence of change in facts regarding Trust receiving government grant in earlier years accepted by Revenue for Section 11 exemption eligibility. HC found no erroneous or prejudicial assessment order u/s 143(3), dismissing appeal as no substantial question of law arose from ITAT order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.