Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
RPA (Remote Pilot Aircraft) for military use defined to include drones/UAV/UAS; exemptions limited to specified defence imports with Joint Secretary c...
Transfer of going concern and transfer of input tax credit under GST allowed; exemption applies though interstate ledger transfers left to authorities...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6701 to 6720 of 96406 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
An assessee-trust denied exemption under s.11 sought revision under s.264 against an order appealable under s.246A. The revisional authority could not refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because an appellate remedy existed, since the statute does not mandate exhaustion of appeal where no appeal is filed; accordingly, rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Further, s.264 powers are wide and intended to prevent miscarriage of justice, enabling relief even where the assessee's own mistake in the return caused omission of a legitimate claim; Goetze (India) Ltd. was held inapplicable. The impugned order rejecting the s.264 application for AY 2016-17 was quashed and set aside. - HC
An assessee-trust denied exemption under s.11 sought revision under s.264 against an order appealable under s.246A. The revisional authority could not refuse to exercise jurisdiction merely because an appellate remedy existed, since the statute does not mandate exhaustion of appeal where no appeal is filed; accordingly, rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Further, s.264 powers are wide and intended to prevent miscarriage of justice, enabling relief even where the assessee's own mistake in the return caused omission of a legitimate claim; Goetze (India) Ltd. was held inapplicable. The impugned order rejecting the s.264 application for AY 2016-17 was quashed and set aside. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.