Trademark depreciation and section 14A adjustments: ITAT applies consistency, independent book-profit computation, and no disallowance without exempt ...
Rebuttable search presumptions and corroboration standards shaped deletion of unsubstantiated additions, while rental income and limited profit estima...
Refund of TDS could not be denied solely because the return was not e-verified within time, where CPC later condoned the delay and accepted the verification. The tax was admittedly borne by the assessee, and once condonation was granted, reliance on the original technical defect was unsustainable. The Tribunal applied the principle that tax can be retained only with authority of law and that refusal to process the refund in these circumstances would offend Article 265 and amount to unjust enrichment by the Revenue. The rejection of the rectification claim and the supporting appellate order were set aside, and refund was directed to be processed in accordance with law.
Refund of TDS could not be denied solely because the return was not e-verified within time, where CPC later condoned the delay and accepted the verification. The tax was admittedly borne by the assessee, and once condonation was granted, reliance on the original technical defect was unsustainable. The Tribunal applied the principle that tax can be retained only with authority of law and that refusal to process the refund in these circumstances would offend Article 265 and amount to unjust enrichment by the Revenue. The rejection of the rectification claim and the supporting appellate order were set aside, and refund was directed to be processed in accordance with law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.