Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Where an efficacious statutory appeal exists under the GST framework, recourse to the appeal remedy must ordinarily precede invocation of Article 226. Applying the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies as one of policy, convenience and discretion, the High Court found no special circumstance to depart from that principle and declined to examine the GST demand on merits. As the petitioner was still within the appeal period under Section 107, liberty was granted to file the appeal within seven days, and it was directed to be treated as within limitation subject to compliance with statutory requirements.
Where an efficacious statutory appeal exists under the GST framework, recourse to the appeal remedy must ordinarily precede invocation of Article 226. Applying the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies as one of policy, convenience and discretion, the High Court found no special circumstance to depart from that principle and declined to examine the GST demand on merits. As the petitioner was still within the appeal period under Section 107, liberty was granted to file the appeal within seven days, and it was directed to be treated as within limitation subject to compliance with statutory requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
