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...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
901 to 920 of 96262 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.