Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
Refund limitation turned on whether an earlier refund application, allegedly filed on 02.06.2011, had in fact been received by the Department; if receipt is proved, that date would govern limitation and the claim would not be time-barred. Because there was no record evidence of receipt, the question was remanded to the refund sanctioning authority for verification. The appellate authority had also exceeded the scope of the original rejection by introducing a new ground on proof of payment; that reasoning was set aside. On remand, the authority may examine double payment and whether the statutory bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 is satisfied.
Refund limitation turned on whether an earlier refund application, allegedly filed on 02.06.2011, had in fact been received by the Department; if receipt is proved, that date would govern limitation and the claim would not be time-barred. Because there was no record evidence of receipt, the question was remanded to the refund sanctioning authority for verification. The appellate authority had also exceeded the scope of the original rejection by introducing a new ground on proof of payment; that reasoning was set aside. On remand, the authority may examine double payment and whether the statutory bar of unjust enrichment under Section 27 is satisfied.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
