Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the show cause notice issued by the Respondents. The Court held that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) or its officials do not have jurisdiction to audit private companies like the Petitioner. Since the impugned show cause notice was not based on any audit undertaken by CAG/CERA, the Court did not delve into the issue of quashing the notice or prohibiting the Respondents from proceeding further. The Court found no infirmity in invoking the extended period of limitation as allegations of suppression or non-declaration were made in the show cause notice. The Court rejected the contention that the documents submitted or explanation offered by the Petitioner were not considered, stating that a show cause notice merely records a prima facie opinion and is not a judgment after adjudication.
The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner challenging the show cause notice issued by the Respondents. The Court held that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) or its officials do not have jurisdiction to audit private companies like the Petitioner. Since the impugned show cause notice was not based on any audit undertaken by CAG/CERA, the Court did not delve into the issue of quashing the notice or prohibiting the Respondents from proceeding further. The Court found no infirmity in invoking the extended period of limitation as allegations of suppression or non-declaration were made in the show cause notice. The Court rejected the contention that the documents submitted or explanation offered by the Petitioner were not considered, stating that a show cause notice merely records a prima facie opinion and is not a judgment after adjudication.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
