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...
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...
No prescribed limitation period governed petitions under the Companies Act before the Company Law Board, but unexplained delay could still matter where relief is discretionary; on these facts, the grievance concerned a continuing course of oppression and mismanagement, so delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel did not bar scrutiny. The Board could examine fraud and forgery on the record where the material disclosed mala fide exclusion, and its findings on shareholding, clandestine meetings and oppressive conduct were not perverse under Section 10F because they rested on company records and correspondence. Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 required due diligence and necessity, which were not shown. The special auditor direction was only consequential and was upheld.
No prescribed limitation period governed petitions under the Companies Act before the Company Law Board, but unexplained delay could still matter where relief is discretionary; on these facts, the grievance concerned a continuing course of oppression and mismanagement, so delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel did not bar scrutiny. The Board could examine fraud and forgery on the record where the material disclosed mala fide exclusion, and its findings on shareholding, clandestine meetings and oppressive conduct were not perverse under Section 10F because they rested on company records and correspondence. Additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 required due diligence and necessity, which were not shown. The special auditor direction was only consequential and was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
