Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The court addressed whether extraordinary writ relief was maintainable where an alternate statutory remedy with a pre-deposit exists and whether the impugned order was time-barred or tainted by denial of natural justice; factual mixed-questions (service, exemption status, limitation) required adjudication and did not justify bypassing the statutory remedy. The statutory pre-deposit requirement was held not to render the remedy inefficacious. Consequently the writ was declined; petitioner directed to file the prescribed statutory appeal within six weeks after complying with pre-conditions including pre-deposit, and the appellate authority must decide the appeal on merits without disputing limitation. - HC
The court addressed whether extraordinary writ relief was maintainable where an alternate statutory remedy with a pre-deposit exists and whether the impugned order was time-barred or tainted by denial of natural justice; factual mixed-questions (service, exemption status, limitation) required adjudication and did not justify bypassing the statutory remedy. The statutory pre-deposit requirement was held not to render the remedy inefficacious. Consequently the writ was declined; petitioner directed to file the prescribed statutory appeal within six weeks after complying with pre-conditions including pre-deposit, and the appellate authority must decide the appeal on merits without disputing limitation. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
