Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1481 to 1500 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
SC upheld the COFEPOSA detention orders, holding that the detenus had no enforceable right to legal representation before the Advisory Board where the detaining or sponsoring authorities did not appear through counsel, and mere production of records by officers was not participation. It further found substantial compliance with the duty to supply relied upon material, as the pen drive contents were shown in prison and the relied upon documents, including translations, were furnished. The Court also accepted that communications rejecting the representations were ministerial acts conveying decisions already taken by competent authorities. Adequate subjective satisfaction, a live and proximate nexus, and the likelihood of release on bail were also established, so both petitions were dismissed.
SC upheld the COFEPOSA detention orders, holding that the detenus had no enforceable right to legal representation before the Advisory Board where the detaining or sponsoring authorities did not appear through counsel, and mere production of records by officers was not participation. It further found substantial compliance with the duty to supply relied upon material, as the pen drive contents were shown in prison and the relied upon documents, including translations, were furnished. The Court also accepted that communications rejecting the representations were ministerial acts conveying decisions already taken by competent authorities. Adequate subjective satisfaction, a live and proximate nexus, and the likelihood of release on bail were also established, so both petitions were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.