Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
861 to 880 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Impugned order suffered from lack of reasoning regarding variation in service tax estimate between declarant/petitioner and designated authority. 50% of demand confirmed, with petitioner submitting lessee paid said amount eligible for set-off under Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Court held petitioner liable for service tax on immovable property rentals from 2007 under Finance Act, 1994, though lessees unsuccessfully challenged levy before various High Courts. Supreme Court ordered lessees to pay 50% property tax despite not being liable under Finance Act. Impugned order passed by two officers, one not hearing petitioner, violating natural justice. Circular on Sabka Vishwas Scheme unclear on appropriating lessee's deposited amount towards declarant's liability and refund mechanism. Court quashed impugned order, remitting case for fresh orders on merits due to element of doubt.
Impugned order suffered from lack of reasoning regarding variation in service tax estimate between declarant/petitioner and designated authority. 50% of demand confirmed, with petitioner submitting lessee paid said amount eligible for set-off under Sabka Vishwas Scheme. Court held petitioner liable for service tax on immovable property rentals from 2007 under Finance Act, 1994, though lessees unsuccessfully challenged levy before various High Courts. Supreme Court ordered lessees to pay 50% property tax despite not being liable under Finance Act. Impugned order passed by two officers, one not hearing petitioner, violating natural justice. Circular on Sabka Vishwas Scheme unclear on appropriating lessee's deposited amount towards declarant's liability and refund mechanism. Court quashed impugned order, remitting case for fresh orders on merits due to element of doubt.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
