Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return filing...
Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95833 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 petition as not maintainable and awarded costs of Rs.2,00,000 payable by the petitioner to the respondent within four weeks. The court held the claim for release/provision of originals seized during searches was impermissible because identical relief had already been granted by the Apex Court and there is no allegation of non-compliance nor any fresh cause of action. The petition was characterised as a collateral attempt to delay adjudication; reliance on statutory-document preparation by officers was rejected. The court noted the respondents had relied on statements of eleven witnesses, all produced in adjudication and already cross-examined by the petitioner, and found the petition misconceived and filed with mala fides.
The HC dismissed the petition as not maintainable and awarded costs of Rs.2,00,000 payable by the petitioner to the respondent within four weeks. The court held the claim for release/provision of originals seized during searches was impermissible because identical relief had already been granted by the Apex Court and there is no allegation of non-compliance nor any fresh cause of action. The petition was characterised as a collateral attempt to delay adjudication; reliance on statutory-document preparation by officers was rejected. The court noted the respondents had relied on statements of eleven witnesses, all produced in adjudication and already cross-examined by the petitioner, and found the petition misconceived and filed with mala fides.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
