Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
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...
The High Court quashed the order rejecting the issuance of Form 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) and directed the respondent to issue Form 5 to the petitioner within twelve weeks. The petitioner had paid the entire amount except Rs. 1,533/- within the specified time period on or before 30th September, 2021. The delay of twelve days in payment of Rs. 1,533/- was considered unintentional and supported by a justifiable reason. The petitioner had also paid the difference of the amount payable after 30th September, 2021. The Court held that permitting the petitioner the benefit of the Scheme would not amount to extending or modifying the Scheme, which is the prerogative of the Government.
The High Court quashed the order rejecting the issuance of Form 5 under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 (DTVSV Act) and directed the respondent to issue Form 5 to the petitioner within twelve weeks. The petitioner had paid the entire amount except Rs. 1,533/- within the specified time period on or before 30th September, 2021. The delay of twelve days in payment of Rs. 1,533/- was considered unintentional and supported by a justifiable reason. The petitioner had also paid the difference of the amount payable after 30th September, 2021. The Court held that permitting the petitioner the benefit of the Scheme would not amount to extending or modifying the Scheme, which is the prerogative of the Government.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
