Infrastructure-development deduction remains available to EPC contractors when substantive statutory conditions outweigh contractor labels in agreemen...
Explained Investment Sources: documented gifts and traceable salary savings supported deletion of additions for property and mutual-fund SIP investmen...
Internal comparable pricing supports arm's-length interest on compulsorily convertible debentures, preventing their recharacterisation as equity for t...
Nominee director protection shields independent financial-institution appointees from criminal liability where they lack involvement in deposit defaul...
Page of 4884
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 97661 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 petition challenging an appellate order that had concurrently rejected the Appellant's appeal on both non-compliance with the pre-deposit obligation under Section 107(6) of the GST Act, 2017 and on merits. The Court distinguished earlier Bench orders that condemned dismissal solely for physical non-deposit without direction, finding the impugned order here decisively addressed substantive issues as well as the technical default. Because the merits findings were supported and no misdirection or illegality justified interference or remand, the Court concluded that setting aside the order in toto or ordering a fresh hearing was unwarranted and therefore dismissed the petition.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging an appellate order that had concurrently rejected the Appellant's appeal on both non-compliance with the pre-deposit obligation under Section 107(6) of the GST Act, 2017 and on merits. The Court distinguished earlier Bench orders that condemned dismissal solely for physical non-deposit without direction, finding the impugned order here decisively addressed substantive issues as well as the technical default. Because the merits findings were supported and no misdirection or illegality justified interference or remand, the Court concluded that setting aside the order in toto or ordering a fresh hearing was unwarranted and therefore dismissed the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.