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" ?
HC held that two assessment orders could not survive for the same tax period and same discrepancies against the same assessee. One impugned order for 2021-2022 was therefore quashed as duplicative, while the Department was left free to proceed under the other order, which also covered an additional discrepancy. Separately, an ex parte assessment was set aside on equitable grounds because the assessee claimed lack of awareness of the notice after GST registration cancellation, the merits had been explained, and a substantial part of the disputed tax had already been recovered. That matter was remanded for fresh consideration with a direction to file reply and documents, and the bank attachment was lifted.
HC held that two assessment orders could not survive for the same tax period and same discrepancies against the same assessee. One impugned order for 2021-2022 was therefore quashed as duplicative, while the Department was left free to proceed under the other order, which also covered an additional discrepancy. Separately, an ex parte assessment was set aside on equitable grounds because the assessee claimed lack of awareness of the notice after GST registration cancellation, the merits had been explained, and a substantial part of the disputed tax had already been recovered. That matter was remanded for fresh consideration with a direction to file reply and documents, and the bank attachment was lifted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.