Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 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 set aside the tax authority's order dated 07.05.2024 confirming the entire original tax demand against the petitioner. The court found that the impugned order failed to consider that petitioner had remitted 58% of the differential amount through electronic credit ledger debit. The HC held that no credit was given for this substantial remittance, necessitating reconsideration. The matter was remanded to the first respondent with directions to reconsider the tax demand after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and accounting for remittances made via electronic credit ledger debit. The petition was disposed of by way of remand.
The HC set aside the tax authority's order dated 07.05.2024 confirming the entire original tax demand against the petitioner. The court found that the impugned order failed to consider that petitioner had remitted 58% of the differential amount through electronic credit ledger debit. The HC held that no credit was given for this substantial remittance, necessitating reconsideration. The matter was remanded to the first respondent with directions to reconsider the tax demand after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and accounting for remittances made via electronic credit ledger debit. The petition was disposed of by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
