Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC dismissed the petition and directed respondents to release the imported goods only to the extent permissible under the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 01.01.2025, holding the Order's compliance relief applies exclusively to domestic manufacturers (including micro and small enterprises) certified by or having applied to the Bureau, and not to importers. The Court upheld a departmental clarification reiterating the manufacturer-centric scope, found no jurisdictional defect, breach of natural justice, or apparent error in the impugned adjudicatory order, and declined to exercise Article 226 discretion given availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner may challenge the order before the CESTAT; time spent in the writ will be credited; petition dismissed.
HC dismissed the petition and directed respondents to release the imported goods only to the extent permissible under the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 01.01.2025, holding the Order's compliance relief applies exclusively to domestic manufacturers (including micro and small enterprises) certified by or having applied to the Bureau, and not to importers. The Court upheld a departmental clarification reiterating the manufacturer-centric scope, found no jurisdictional defect, breach of natural justice, or apparent error in the impugned adjudicatory order, and declined to exercise Article 226 discretion given availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner may challenge the order before the CESTAT; time spent in the writ will be credited; petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
