Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
721 to 740 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
A liquidation claim filed after a 787-day delay was rejected because Regulation 12(2)(b) requires claims to be lodged or updated within the prescribed time, and insolvency law treats timeliness as central to the liquidation process. Even if the timeline were treated as directory, an inordinate delay still needed a satisfactory explanation, which was absent here. The pendency or abatement of customs proceedings did not bar filing the claim before the liquidator, and a government department was not entitled to any special indulgence in condonation of delay. Entertaining the belated claim at an advanced stage would disrupt the liquidation process, so the rejection was upheld.
A liquidation claim filed after a 787-day delay was rejected because Regulation 12(2)(b) requires claims to be lodged or updated within the prescribed time, and insolvency law treats timeliness as central to the liquidation process. Even if the timeline were treated as directory, an inordinate delay still needed a satisfactory explanation, which was absent here. The pendency or abatement of customs proceedings did not bar filing the claim before the liquidator, and a government department was not entitled to any special indulgence in condonation of delay. Entertaining the belated claim at an advanced stage would disrupt the liquidation process, so the rejection was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
