Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6541 to 6560 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Investments in fixed deposit receipts under the statutory investment mode do not constitute an application of income for charitable purposes; the Special Bench held that Section 11(5) prescribes permissible investment modes distinct from application under Section 11(1), and therefore FDRs cannot be treated as charitable application. Reopening assessments were validly initiated because the trust failed to furnish the mandatory intimation (Form No.10), constituting non-disclosure of material facts, so reassessments under reopening provisions were not a mere change of opinion. Consequential claims for set-off of alleged earlier excess application were rejected as the issue was finally decided against the assessee.
Investments in fixed deposit receipts under the statutory investment mode do not constitute an application of income for charitable purposes; the Special Bench held that Section 11(5) prescribes permissible investment modes distinct from application under Section 11(1), and therefore FDRs cannot be treated as charitable application. Reopening assessments were validly initiated because the trust failed to furnish the mandatory intimation (Form No.10), constituting non-disclosure of material facts, so reassessments under reopening provisions were not a mere change of opinion. Consequential claims for set-off of alleged earlier excess application were rejected as the issue was finally decided against the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.