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...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1081 to 1100 of 95918 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 set aside the appellate authority's order dated 17 February 2025 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of the petitioner's alleged intent to avail an Amnesty Scheme. The HC held that, even if withdrawal of the appeal was a precondition to claim amnesty, only the petitioner could elect to withdraw; the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal suo motu absent any withdrawal request. Such dismissal, without notice or hearing, unlawfully deprived the petitioner both of eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme and of adjudication on merits. The HC remanded the matter to the appellate authority to rehear and decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
The HC set aside the appellate authority's order dated 17 February 2025 dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of the petitioner's alleged intent to avail an Amnesty Scheme. The HC held that, even if withdrawal of the appeal was a precondition to claim amnesty, only the petitioner could elect to withdraw; the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal suo motu absent any withdrawal request. Such dismissal, without notice or hearing, unlawfully deprived the petitioner both of eligibility under the Amnesty Scheme and of adjudication on merits. The HC remanded the matter to the appellate authority to rehear and decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law. The petition was allowed by way of remand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
