Charitable registration renewal cannot become an assessment of receipts, profitability or annual exemption compliance, requiring renewal and donation ...
AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 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" ?
Section 2(28C) defining "Joint Commissioner" to include the Additional Commissioner governed the approval requirement for penalty proceedings, and a harmonious reading of the Act showed no indication in section 274(2) that the inclusive definition was excluded. Provisions that separately mentioned both officers were treated as clarificatory rather than restrictive, and reading the term otherwise would make the statutory definition ineffective. Prior approval by the Additional Commissioner was therefore valid compliance with the approval requirement, and the challenge to the penalty proceedings on want of proper sanction failed. The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty preserved to pursue statutory remedies on the merits.
Section 2(28C) defining "Joint Commissioner" to include the Additional Commissioner governed the approval requirement for penalty proceedings, and a harmonious reading of the Act showed no indication in section 274(2) that the inclusive definition was excluded. Provisions that separately mentioned both officers were treated as clarificatory rather than restrictive, and reading the term otherwise would make the statutory definition ineffective. Prior approval by the Additional Commissioner was therefore valid compliance with the approval requirement, and the challenge to the penalty proceedings on want of proper sanction failed. The writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty preserved to pursue statutory remedies on the merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.