CBDT INSTRUCTION 1914 PDF
Records 1 – 20 of 43 cbdt circular no stay demand instruction, Income Tax, Goods and services Tax, GST, Service Tax, Central Excise, Custom, Wealth Tax. Circular dated 29 Feb held not to supersede earlier Instruction dated 02 Feb in toto, but to only partially modify guidelines. August CBDT partially modifies instruction no. of for stay of demand and increases the payment requirement from 15% to 20%.
|Published (Last):||14 September 2008|
|PDF File Size:||9.77 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Consider putting the most unique and important word here.
CBDT Modifies Guidelines For Stay Of Demand By The AO
The respondents failed to appreciate Instructtion Number 96, dated Instructin the AO felt constrained by the terms of the circular, he could have sought a clarification; at worst, he could have referred the matter to the Commissioner, if he though Allahabad High Court You have reach your max limit.
Cases cited for the legal proposition you have searched for. Coca Cola India P. Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission 1. In my view these instructions and directives can be a Intellectual Property Appellate Board 0. Many assessees are taking the plea that Instruction No.
Validity of attachment order – failure to discharge its GST liabilitie Request of applicant in case of high pitched Assessment is also supported by instruction No. In the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Flipkart India Private Limited, referred – Delhi High Court The instructions cannot take away the discretionary power of the Assessing Officer and the purport of issuing such instruction is Central Electricity Regulatory Commission.
Start Tour No Thanks. As per Clause 2 B of the instructionthe stay petitions Gauhati High Court National Company Instructino Tribunal cbdf. Jolly handed over a copy of the said instruction.
CBDT Modifies Guidelines For Stay Of Demand By The AO |Useful Miscellania
This court is of the view 9114 if the petitioner is permitted to file another fresh stay application before the CITA, it will unnecessarily result in another round of litigation, which will have impact in disposal of the appeal. Patna High Court Capital gain computation – reference to DVO – fair market value determ Apeejay Education Society, jalandhar v.
Calcutta High Court Bank Of Baroda v. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal.
instruction | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Maheshwari Agro Industries v. From To Review of stay matters in case of disputed dues and applications for stay of balance instalments fixed earlier, new demands etc. The Assessing Officer not only did not pass any order thereon, but even though he was not inclined to entertain the application, he did not even deem it fit to inform the petitioner about the same.
Madhya Pradesh High Court 9. Click to upgrade Your Package to have this feature.