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" ?
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.