Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
HC dismissed petition challenging lower court's order allowing respondent to summon GST Department witness. Court held that since GST records were not in respondent's possession, they could rightfully request witness testimony, subject to Rs. 3,000/- costs. The principle of plaintiff's burden of proof was upheld, affirming their discretion to determine necessary witnesses and documentation. While irrelevant evidence would be disregarded, the Court maintained that plaintiffs cannot be denied their right to present their case as they deem appropriate during the evidentiary stage. The ruling emphasizes procedural fairness in evidence gathering despite potential relevancy concerns.
HC dismissed petition challenging lower court's order allowing respondent to summon GST Department witness. Court held that since GST records were not in respondent's possession, they could rightfully request witness testimony, subject to Rs. 3,000/- costs. The principle of plaintiff's burden of proof was upheld, affirming their discretion to determine necessary witnesses and documentation. While irrelevant evidence would be disregarded, the Court maintained that plaintiffs cannot be denied their right to present their case as they deem appropriate during the evidentiary stage. The ruling emphasizes procedural fairness in evidence gathering despite potential relevancy concerns.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
