Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Respondents made a concession before the Regulatory Authority to accept interest only on amounts paid after RERA implementation. However, before the Appellate Authority, they insisted no such concession was made. Instead of filing an application with the Regulatory Authority to correct the erroneous recording of the concession, Respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal entertained the appeal without any pleading from Respondents regarding the erroneous recording of the concession. It erroneously concluded that no concession was made based on absence of certain points in the Regulatory Authority's order. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the appeal without Respondents first seeking clarification from the Regulatory Authority regarding the concession. It also erred by entertaining an oral plea about non-concession without any pleading in the appeal memo. The Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside as indefensible.
Respondents made a concession before the Regulatory Authority to accept interest only on amounts paid after RERA implementation. However, before the Appellate Authority, they insisted no such concession was made. Instead of filing an application with the Regulatory Authority to correct the erroneous recording of the concession, Respondents filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal entertained the appeal without any pleading from Respondents regarding the erroneous recording of the concession. It erroneously concluded that no concession was made based on absence of certain points in the Regulatory Authority's order. The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the appeal without Respondents first seeking clarification from the Regulatory Authority regarding the concession. It also erred by entertaining an oral plea about non-concession without any pleading in the appeal memo. The Appellate Tribunal's order was set aside as indefensible.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
