Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 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 
