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 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
821 to 840 of 96176 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Writ petitions challenging orders-in-original were held not maintainable because an alternate and efficacious statutory appeal existed under section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioners' reliance on an earlier High Court decision concerning the legislative competence and validity of the State levy did not assist them, because the adjudicating authority had separately examined the nature and use of the levy for service tax purposes. The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the authority's action, and held that the correctness of that view, including the effect of the 13.04.2016 circular, should be considered by the appellate authority and, if necessary, the Tribunal. Liberty was granted to file appeals within the time allowed.
Writ petitions challenging orders-in-original were held not maintainable because an alternate and efficacious statutory appeal existed under section 107 of the GST Act. The petitioners' reliance on an earlier High Court decision concerning the legislative competence and validity of the State levy did not assist them, because the adjudicating authority had separately examined the nature and use of the levy for service tax purposes. The Court found no jurisdictional defect in the authority's action, and held that the correctness of that view, including the effect of the 13.04.2016 circular, should be considered by the appellate authority and, if necessary, the Tribunal. Liberty was granted to file appeals within the time allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.