Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 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" ?
Refund could not be denied merely because the Chartered Accountant's certificate was not in the prescribed format or did not mention the year, where the lower authority did not question the genuineness of the claim and the defect was only formal. The Tribunal held that the Board circular format was only indicative, not mandatory, and that substantial compliance was sufficient. The rejection of refund on this technical ground was therefore unsustainable. The common appellate order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
Refund could not be denied merely because the Chartered Accountant's certificate was not in the prescribed format or did not mention the year, where the lower authority did not question the genuineness of the claim and the defect was only formal. The Tribunal held that the Board circular format was only indicative, not mandatory, and that substantial compliance was sufficient. The rejection of refund on this technical ground was therefore unsustainable. The common appellate order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.