Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Employee conflict disclosures and investment restrictions expand with new recusal duties, post-employment limits, and compliance reporting requirement...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1721 to 1740 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Detention of perishable goods could not be left pending for months without a formal seizure order or timely action under the statutory detention framework. The High Court required the authorities to determine ownership on the basis of the accompanying invoices and the applicable departmental clarification, under which the consignor or consignee is treated as the owner where the prescribed documents accompany the consignment. It also rejected the insistence on the petitioner's personal appearance, holding that representation through an advocate is permitted in GST proceedings. The matter was directed to be heard immediately, with liberty to deposit the amount under Section 129(1)(a) and for release to follow in accordance with law if payment was accepted.
Detention of perishable goods could not be left pending for months without a formal seizure order or timely action under the statutory detention framework. The High Court required the authorities to determine ownership on the basis of the accompanying invoices and the applicable departmental clarification, under which the consignor or consignee is treated as the owner where the prescribed documents accompany the consignment. It also rejected the insistence on the petitioner's personal appearance, holding that representation through an advocate is permitted in GST proceedings. The matter was directed to be heard immediately, with liberty to deposit the amount under Section 129(1)(a) and for release to follow in accordance with law if payment was accepted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.