Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Unpaid supply dues arising under a separate inter se agreement between joint venture partners constituted operational debt, because the contractual documents specifically allocated the supply obligation to the respondent and made payment contingent on receipt from OPTCL; the corporate debtor's acknowledgment of the balance payable confirmed liability, so admission of the Section 9 application was justified. The Section 10A objection failed because no factual foundation was laid below and the pleaded default date fell outside the protected period, making the statutory bar inapplicable. No pre-existing dispute was shown, as the correspondence relied on reflected acknowledgment of liability rather than a genuine dispute.
Unpaid supply dues arising under a separate inter se agreement between joint venture partners constituted operational debt, because the contractual documents specifically allocated the supply obligation to the respondent and made payment contingent on receipt from OPTCL; the corporate debtor's acknowledgment of the balance payable confirmed liability, so admission of the Section 9 application was justified. The Section 10A objection failed because no factual foundation was laid below and the pleaded default date fell outside the protected period, making the statutory bar inapplicable. No pre-existing dispute was shown, as the correspondence relied on reflected acknowledgment of liability rather than a genuine dispute.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
