Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.