Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95955 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The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn, holding that the appeals did not fall under the exception carved out in Circular No. 3.1(l) dated 15.03.2024. The Court ruled that the exception in Clause 3.1(l) applies only to cases where the deductor failed to deduct tax at source and the tax was sought to be recovered from the payer. However, in the present case, the issue pertained to the disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee due to non-deduction of tax at source u/s 195. The Court clarified that litigation arising from regular assessments u/s 143(3) and failure to deduct tax at source are treated separately under the Act. Consequently, the enhanced monetary limits specified in the Circular applied retrospectively, rendering the tax effect in the appeals below the prescribed threshold, leading to their dismissal.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue as withdrawn, holding that the appeals did not fall under the exception carved out in Circular No. 3.1(l) dated 15.03.2024. The Court ruled that the exception in Clause 3.1(l) applies only to cases where the deductor failed to deduct tax at source and the tax was sought to be recovered from the payer. However, in the present case, the issue pertained to the disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee due to non-deduction of tax at source u/s 195. The Court clarified that litigation arising from regular assessments u/s 143(3) and failure to deduct tax at source are treated separately under the Act. Consequently, the enhanced monetary limits specified in the Circular applied retrospectively, rendering the tax effect in the appeals below the prescribed threshold, leading to their dismissal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
