Religious purpose exclusion versus charitable purpose: non overriding religious objects do not attract Explanation 3, registration directed under sect...
Search-assessment proviso jurisdiction, time-barred valuation reports, and denial of cross-examination vitiate valuation-based and confession-based ad...
Proceeds of crime: provisional attachment confirmed; equivalent value attachment and acquisition date fair market value upheld, Covid exclusion preser...
The sole issue is whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by treating the 10% ceiling in the Third Proviso to Section 19(1) as a mandatory minimum despite finding "undue hardship" and poor financial condition. The Court held that "undue hardship" means a burden disproportionate to the requirement; where an NPA-classified appellant lacks liquid assets a multi-crore deposit is prima facie impossible and would render the statutory right of appeal illusory. The Tribunal ought to have imposed alternative conditions (indemnity bonds, corporate guarantees) under the Second Proviso; appeal allowed. - HC
The sole issue is whether the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by treating the 10% ceiling in the Third Proviso to Section 19(1) as a mandatory minimum despite finding "undue hardship" and poor financial condition. The Court held that "undue hardship" means a burden disproportionate to the requirement; where an NPA-classified appellant lacks liquid assets a multi-crore deposit is prima facie impossible and would render the statutory right of appeal illusory. The Tribunal ought to have imposed alternative conditions (indemnity bonds, corporate guarantees) under the Second Proviso; appeal allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4823 
Join Channel 
