Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 95955 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
