Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Bogus donation receipts justified commission income assessment and defeated political-party tax exemption for inaccurate accounts and reporting failur...
Pure reimbursement without income element escapes tax withholding, while delayed withholding and unsupported provisions face deferred or renewed scrut...
Public benefit requirement defeats charitable registration where residents' association services are reciprocal, member-only facilities governed by mu...
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined against a show cause notice and consequential order under section 74 of the CGST Act because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under section 107 read with Rule 109A. The Court held that challenges requiring examination of the corrigendum, the underlying material, and the nature of the correction involved factual appreciation and therefore did not fall within the limited certiorari jurisdiction. Mere disagreement with the adjudicating authority's conclusions was insufficient to bypass the appellate remedy. The Court also noted that recognised exceptional grounds such as breach of fundamental rights, natural justice violations, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires were not made out on the material before it, and it expressed no opinion on the merits.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was declined against a show cause notice and consequential order under section 74 of the CGST Act because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under section 107 read with Rule 109A. The Court held that challenges requiring examination of the corrigendum, the underlying material, and the nature of the correction involved factual appreciation and therefore did not fall within the limited certiorari jurisdiction. Mere disagreement with the adjudicating authority's conclusions was insufficient to bypass the appellate remedy. The Court also noted that recognised exceptional grounds such as breach of fundamental rights, natural justice violations, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires were not made out on the material before it, and it expressed no opinion on the merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
