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" ?
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 4813 
Join Channel 
