Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
Section 7 admission requires established financial debt and default, not precise interest quantification, while post-suspension defaults remain action...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Provisional attachment of a bank account under section 83 is a drastic power that can be exercised only on a prior, valid formation of opinion based on tangible material and after compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards. The pre-attachment communication and attachment order were vague, issued without a show cause notice, and disclosed no proper material or reasoning; the attachment therefore breached the petitioner's civil rights and was unlawful. The High Court quashed the attachment orders but permitted the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law if tangible material exists. Finding a gross abuse of power and high-handed conduct causing serious civil consequences, the Court also imposed personal costs on the concerned officer.
Provisional attachment of a bank account under section 83 is a drastic power that can be exercised only on a prior, valid formation of opinion based on tangible material and after compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards. The pre-attachment communication and attachment order were vague, issued without a show cause notice, and disclosed no proper material or reasoning; the attachment therefore breached the petitioner's civil rights and was unlawful. The High Court quashed the attachment orders but permitted the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law if tangible material exists. Finding a gross abuse of power and high-handed conduct causing serious civil consequences, the Court also imposed personal costs on the concerned officer.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.