Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
The HC adjudicated a challenge to the First Appellate Authority's order mandating a deposit for stay of the impugned tax order. It recognized a Central revenue notification reducing the deposit requirement to 10% of the disputed tax. The State revenue issued a corresponding notification aligning with this reduction. Consequently, the HC modified the earlier order, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the remaining disputed tax to maintain the stay. The petitioner's submission regarding the reduced deposit was accepted, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with the stay contingent upon compliance with the revised deposit condition.
The HC adjudicated a challenge to the First Appellate Authority's order mandating a deposit for stay of the impugned tax order. It recognized a Central revenue notification reducing the deposit requirement to 10% of the disputed tax. The State revenue issued a corresponding notification aligning with this reduction. Consequently, the HC modified the earlier order, directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the remaining disputed tax to maintain the stay. The petitioner's submission regarding the reduced deposit was accepted, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with the stay contingent upon compliance with the revised deposit condition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
