Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
VCES benefit denied because the declarant failed to pay the mandatory 50% pre deposit by the specified cut off date and filed a declaration barred by the second proviso to Section 106(1) for a subsequent period where an order of determination already existed; the designated authority validly rejected the declaration after due process. The tribunal held that the scheme's procedural timetable and stipulations are inviolable, that courts cannot extend amnesty timelines, and that the designated authority possesses inherent and ancillary powers to scrutinise and refuse nonconforming declarations. The appellate challenge was dismissed for lack of merit.
VCES benefit denied because the declarant failed to pay the mandatory 50% pre deposit by the specified cut off date and filed a declaration barred by the second proviso to Section 106(1) for a subsequent period where an order of determination already existed; the designated authority validly rejected the declaration after due process. The tribunal held that the scheme's procedural timetable and stipulations are inviolable, that courts cannot extend amnesty timelines, and that the designated authority possesses inherent and ancillary powers to scrutinise and refuse nonconforming declarations. The appellate challenge was dismissed for lack of merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
