Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
21 to 40 of 95875 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 partly allowed the writ appeal against an impugned order that exceeded the amount specified in the Show Cause Notice (SCN). While the court acknowledged potential violations of natural justice principles regarding jurisdiction and limitation, it determined these issues required factual examination by the respondent authority. The HC set aside the Single Judge's observation regarding automatic restoration of the order if no reply was filed within three weeks. Instead, the appellant was granted four weeks from judgment receipt to submit their reply, with explicit permission to raise both limitation and jurisdictional defenses before the respondent authority.
The HC partly allowed the writ appeal against an impugned order that exceeded the amount specified in the Show Cause Notice (SCN). While the court acknowledged potential violations of natural justice principles regarding jurisdiction and limitation, it determined these issues required factual examination by the respondent authority. The HC set aside the Single Judge's observation regarding automatic restoration of the order if no reply was filed within three weeks. Instead, the appellant was granted four weeks from judgment receipt to submit their reply, with explicit permission to raise both limitation and jurisdictional defenses before the respondent authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.