Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Amounts paid and collected under protest during the period of disputed tax liability were treated as part of compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement, because there was no express provision excluding such deposits from consideration. The High Court noted, prima facie, that the taxpayer had already paid TCS under protest from 1 April 2021, and that those sums related to the disputed liability period but had not been included in the quantification. Rejecting the contention that the payments amounted to an admission of liability for the later period, the Court modified the earlier interim condition and held that no further 10% deposit was required for the petition to proceed on merits.
Amounts paid and collected under protest during the period of disputed tax liability were treated as part of compliance with the statutory pre-deposit requirement, because there was no express provision excluding such deposits from consideration. The High Court noted, prima facie, that the taxpayer had already paid TCS under protest from 1 April 2021, and that those sums related to the disputed liability period but had not been included in the quantification. Rejecting the contention that the payments amounted to an admission of liability for the later period, the Court modified the earlier interim condition and held that no further 10% deposit was required for the petition to proceed on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
