Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 96332 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects fell within protection of environment under section 2(15), not the residuary head of advancement of any other object of general public utility. Accordingly, the proviso to section 2(15) and the 20% commercial-receipt threshold were inapplicable, making denial of registration on that basis legally unsustainable. It further held that deduction of tax at source on receipts did not, by itself, defeat the exemption claim, that filing return in ITR-6 was explainable because the assessee was not registered at that time, and that filing under a wrong limb was only a bona fide technical error requiring verification. Registration under section 12A was accepted subject to verification of the technical objection.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's objects fell within protection of environment under section 2(15), not the residuary head of advancement of any other object of general public utility. Accordingly, the proviso to section 2(15) and the 20% commercial-receipt threshold were inapplicable, making denial of registration on that basis legally unsustainable. It further held that deduction of tax at source on receipts did not, by itself, defeat the exemption claim, that filing return in ITR-6 was explainable because the assessee was not registered at that time, and that filing under a wrong limb was only a bona fide technical error requiring verification. Registration under section 12A was accepted subject to verification of the technical objection.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.