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...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96257 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 rectification withdrawing the claimed exemption and converting a refund into demand was procedurally invalid because no prior notice or hearing was given under the proviso to Section 154(3), and the refund was adjusted without prior intimation under Section 245, breaching natural justice. The Court therefore interfered on procedural grounds and left the merits of the exemption claim open. It also treated the matter as a high-pitched assessment case: since the assessee's appeal was pending with written submissions already on record, recovery was directed to remain stayed until final disposal of the appeal, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously by a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.
HC held that rectification withdrawing the claimed exemption and converting a refund into demand was procedurally invalid because no prior notice or hearing was given under the proviso to Section 154(3), and the refund was adjusted without prior intimation under Section 245, breaching natural justice. The Court therefore interfered on procedural grounds and left the merits of the exemption claim open. It also treated the matter as a high-pitched assessment case: since the assessee's appeal was pending with written submissions already on record, recovery was directed to remain stayed until final disposal of the appeal, and the appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously by a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
