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" ?
An electronic GST penalty order was upheld despite not separately displaying a DIN because it carried a portal-verifiable RFN and had been served through statutory modes recognised under section 169, including the common portal, registered post and e-mail. The Court held that a challenge based only on the absence of the DIN label could not succeed where the communication was traceable and authentic, and relied on the CBIC circular dated 09.06.2025 clarifying that portal-generated communications with a verifiable RFN do not require a separate DIN. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal and exclusion of writ time for limitation purposes.
An electronic GST penalty order was upheld despite not separately displaying a DIN because it carried a portal-verifiable RFN and had been served through statutory modes recognised under section 169, including the common portal, registered post and e-mail. The Court held that a challenge based only on the absence of the DIN label could not succeed where the communication was traceable and authentic, and relied on the CBIC circular dated 09.06.2025 clarifying that portal-generated communications with a verifiable RFN do not require a separate DIN. The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal and exclusion of writ time for limitation purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.