Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 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 HC upheld a transfer order under s.127(2) of the Income Tax Act relocating the petitioner's case from Mumbai to New Delhi. The court found substantial compliance with statutory requirements, noting proper consultation and agreement between Principal Commissioners and Chief Commissioners. The transfer was justified on merits to facilitate centralization of cases connected to the Pacific Group, where revenue evasion necessitated consolidated investigation. The court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing that such discretionary power is reserved for promoting justice rather than addressing mere legal technicalities, particularly when jurisdictional parameters have been satisfied. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
The HC upheld a transfer order under s.127(2) of the Income Tax Act relocating the petitioner's case from Mumbai to New Delhi. The court found substantial compliance with statutory requirements, noting proper consultation and agreement between Principal Commissioners and Chief Commissioners. The transfer was justified on merits to facilitate centralization of cases connected to the Pacific Group, where revenue evasion necessitated consolidated investigation. The court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing that such discretionary power is reserved for promoting justice rather than addressing mere legal technicalities, particularly when jurisdictional parameters have been satisfied. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
