Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
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...
The HC upheld the impugned judgment in full and dismissed the appeal. The court found the revocation of the IPLOI (as amended) and subsequent invocation of the unconditional bank guarantee valid under the contractual terms: the Appellants defaulted, Clause 11 and the Addendum authorized termination and invocation, and the IPLOI prevailed over any RFP discrepancy. The Section 7 application filed by Respondent No.1 was not admitted before revocation and was ultimately dismissed as infructuous, so no actionable fraud was attributable to Respondent No.1; allegations of fraud were unpleaded and unproved. The court declined to restrain invocation of the unconditional BG absent egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice.
The HC upheld the impugned judgment in full and dismissed the appeal. The court found the revocation of the IPLOI (as amended) and subsequent invocation of the unconditional bank guarantee valid under the contractual terms: the Appellants defaulted, Clause 11 and the Addendum authorized termination and invocation, and the IPLOI prevailed over any RFP discrepancy. The Section 7 application filed by Respondent No.1 was not admitted before revocation and was ultimately dismissed as infructuous, so no actionable fraud was attributable to Respondent No.1; allegations of fraud were unpleaded and unproved. The court declined to restrain invocation of the unconditional BG absent egregious fraud or irretrievable injustice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.