Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
601 to 620 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The case pertains to the jurisdiction of impugned orders under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and the time limitation u/s 73 and Section 44 of the Act. The key points are: the retrospective effect of notifications, the time limit prescribed for issuing orders u/s 73(9) based on the due date of filing annual returns u/s 44(1), and the validity of the impugned orders in light of this time limit. The due date for filing the annual return for the financial year 2017-18 was extended to 05.02.2020 via notifications. Consequently, the three-year time limit u/s 73(10) for issuing orders ended on 05.02.2023. However, the impugned orders were dated 05.10.2024 and 02.12.2023, beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the High Court held that the impugned orders were beyond jurisdiction, being barred by the time limit u/s 73(10). Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner's frozen accounts were ordered to be de-frozen.
The case pertains to the jurisdiction of impugned orders under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, and the time limitation u/s 73 and Section 44 of the Act. The key points are: the retrospective effect of notifications, the time limit prescribed for issuing orders u/s 73(9) based on the due date of filing annual returns u/s 44(1), and the validity of the impugned orders in light of this time limit. The due date for filing the annual return for the financial year 2017-18 was extended to 05.02.2020 via notifications. Consequently, the three-year time limit u/s 73(10) for issuing orders ended on 05.02.2023. However, the impugned orders were dated 05.10.2024 and 02.12.2023, beyond the prescribed time limit. Therefore, the High Court held that the impugned orders were beyond jurisdiction, being barred by the time limit u/s 73(10). Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner's frozen accounts were ordered to be de-frozen.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
