Concessional Basic Customs Duty on Ethernet switches: classification as enterprise switches upheld, challenge dismissed for lack of substantial law qu...
Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
Liability for non-remittance of TDS rests with those responsible for corporate affairs; petitioner may challenge assessment orders as based on the company's erroneous TDS declaration and is entitled to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, which must be followed rather than seeking Article 226 review. The Official Liquidator failed to consider the petitioner's representation; the court directed the Liquidator to consider instituting appeals and placed a temporary bar on precipitative recovery or prosecution until the representation is decided or the appeal period expires.
Liability for non-remittance of TDS rests with those responsible for corporate affairs; petitioner may challenge assessment orders as based on the company's erroneous TDS declaration and is entitled to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, which must be followed rather than seeking Article 226 review. The Official Liquidator failed to consider the petitioner's representation; the court directed the Liquidator to consider instituting appeals and placed a temporary bar on precipitative recovery or prosecution until the representation is decided or the appeal period expires.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
