Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Petitioner sought benefit under the MEIS Scheme for goods exported under Shipping Bills. The grievance was that despite being eligible, the Petitioner was denied the reward of Rs. 47,10,685.38 under the MEI Scheme due to an inadvertent error in processing the Shipping Bills. The Respondents admitted that the EDI Shipping Bills were left blank, resulting in automatic rejection. The High Court directed the Respondents to examine the 185 EDI Shipping Bills of the Petitioner afresh, treating the submissions as a 'Yes', and pass a Speaking Order deciding the Petitioner's entitlement to the MEI Scheme rewards within 12 weeks, in accordance with the law. The Petition was disposed of.
The Petitioner sought benefit under the MEIS Scheme for goods exported under Shipping Bills. The grievance was that despite being eligible, the Petitioner was denied the reward of Rs. 47,10,685.38 under the MEI Scheme due to an inadvertent error in processing the Shipping Bills. The Respondents admitted that the EDI Shipping Bills were left blank, resulting in automatic rejection. The High Court directed the Respondents to examine the 185 EDI Shipping Bills of the Petitioner afresh, treating the submissions as a 'Yes', and pass a Speaking Order deciding the Petitioner's entitlement to the MEI Scheme rewards within 12 weeks, in accordance with the law. The Petition was disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
