Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 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 held that the impugned order by the respondent Collector did not fall within the scope of section 4B of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, rendering an appeal under section 10A inapplicable. Consequently, the writ petition was entertained. The petitioner, operating a water park, was found prima facie eligible for exemption from entertainment tax under the 2006 policy and the Act's definition of tourism projects. The Collector's order, influenced by the Accountant General, was deemed summary and lacked a thorough examination of the petitioner's tax liability. The court recognized a prima facie case favoring the petitioner but emphasized that any interim relief must not be unconditional given the tax nature of the dispute. Notice was issued to the respondents, with a returnable date set for 26.08.2025.
The HC held that the impugned order by the respondent Collector did not fall within the scope of section 4B of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, rendering an appeal under section 10A inapplicable. Consequently, the writ petition was entertained. The petitioner, operating a water park, was found prima facie eligible for exemption from entertainment tax under the 2006 policy and the Act's definition of tourism projects. The Collector's order, influenced by the Accountant General, was deemed summary and lacked a thorough examination of the petitioner's tax liability. The court recognized a prima facie case favoring the petitioner but emphasized that any interim relief must not be unconditional given the tax nature of the dispute. Notice was issued to the respondents, with a returnable date set for 26.08.2025.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
