Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Binding coordinate Bench orders in the assessee's own case had already directed grant of approval for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) from assessment year 2018-19 onwards, and that earlier determination could not be displaced by a later administrative error. The Commissioner (Exemptions) had incorrectly recorded that sections 11 and 12 applied, but the Tribunal held that this mistake did not override the prior directions. The Revenue's argument that the application date confined relief to assessment year 2019-20 was rejected because judicial discipline required following the earlier view on entitlement for assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer was directed to give effect to exemption under section 10(23C)(vi).
Binding coordinate Bench orders in the assessee's own case had already directed grant of approval for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) from assessment year 2018-19 onwards, and that earlier determination could not be displaced by a later administrative error. The Commissioner (Exemptions) had incorrectly recorded that sections 11 and 12 applied, but the Tribunal held that this mistake did not override the prior directions. The Revenue's argument that the application date confined relief to assessment year 2019-20 was rejected because judicial discipline required following the earlier view on entitlement for assessment year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer was directed to give effect to exemption under section 10(23C)(vi).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.