Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Exempt-income expenditure disallowance is confined to investments that actually generated exempt income, while supported business expenses remain dedu...
Objective characteristics and principal use govern mining-tyre classification, while fresh advance ruling applications may rely on additional technica...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
801 to 820 of 96092 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 dismissed the writ challenging a suo motu revision order by an Additional Commissioner under s.23(4)(a) of the OST Act, holding the Additional Commissioner validly exercised delegated revisionary power and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to re-initiate revision once such delegated power was exercised. By virtue of the non-obstante clause in s.23(4)(d) and the delegation scheme under s.3/Rule 3, any remedy lies by way of appeal to the Commissioner under s.23(4)(c)(ii). The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order dated 31 May 2025 before the Commissioner and may raise all available grounds; the writ petition was disposed.
The HC dismissed the writ challenging a suo motu revision order by an Additional Commissioner under s.23(4)(a) of the OST Act, holding the Additional Commissioner validly exercised delegated revisionary power and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to re-initiate revision once such delegated power was exercised. By virtue of the non-obstante clause in s.23(4)(d) and the delegation scheme under s.3/Rule 3, any remedy lies by way of appeal to the Commissioner under s.23(4)(c)(ii). The petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order dated 31 May 2025 before the Commissioner and may raise all available grounds; the writ petition was disposed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
