Charitable trust income application permits verified capital expenditure but rejects deferred pre-operative claims and requires reconsideration of con...
Reinsurance premium deductions require established regulatory breaches, while independently acquired software qualifies within the computer depreciati...
Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Petitioner challenged appellate orders rejecting refund applications. HC held there are no grounds to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 as statutory appeal lies before Tribunal. Though Tribunal is not constituted, Central Government permitted filing appeal after its constitution. Since impugned orders relate to refund with no demand, pre-deposit of 20% tax demand is not required. Petition closed.
Petitioner challenged appellate orders rejecting refund applications. HC held there are no grounds to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 as statutory appeal lies before Tribunal. Though Tribunal is not constituted, Central Government permitted filing appeal after its constitution. Since impugned orders relate to refund with no demand, pre-deposit of 20% tax demand is not required. Petition closed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.