Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
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...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies where acquisition proceedings began under the 1894 Act but the award was made after the 2013 Act commenced; compensation must then be determined under the 2013 Act, while rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are not retrospectively imported. Appeals from such awards are treated as first appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, not under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. Section 74 does not expressly or impliedly exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and Section 29(2) therefore permits condonation of delay. The delay in the first appeals was condoned, the contrary High Court rulings were set aside, and the matters were directed to proceed on merits.
Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies where acquisition proceedings began under the 1894 Act but the award was made after the 2013 Act commenced; compensation must then be determined under the 2013 Act, while rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements are not retrospectively imported. Appeals from such awards are treated as first appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, not under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. Section 74 does not expressly or impliedly exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and Section 29(2) therefore permits condonation of delay. The delay in the first appeals was condoned, the contrary High Court rulings were set aside, and the matters were directed to proceed on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.