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...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that since the petitioner failed to pay the...
Petitioner ineligible for SVLDRS 2019 benefits due to non-payment within stipulated period; subsequent recoveries treated as arrears under Finance Act.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The HC held that since the petitioner failed to pay the determined amount under SVLDRS Form-3 within the stipulated period, the petitioner could not avail the benefit offered under the SVLDRS, 2019 scheme. The amounts recovered by the Department were not payments made within the scheme's period but subsequent recoveries of arrears u/s 87 of the Finance Act, 1994. As the petitioner became the firm's Managing Partner after the reconstituted partnership deed, the HC found no merit in challenging the attachment order and dismissed the petition.
The HC held that since the petitioner failed to pay the determined amount under SVLDRS Form-3 within the stipulated period, the petitioner could not avail the benefit offered under the SVLDRS, 2019 scheme. The amounts recovered by the Department were not payments made within the scheme's period but subsequent recoveries of arrears u/s 87 of the Finance Act, 1994. As the petitioner became the firm's Managing Partner after the reconstituted partnership deed, the HC found no merit in challenging the attachment order and dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
