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 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1381 to 1400 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" ?
Writ petitions seeking recovery of contractual deductions may be barred by limitation where each deduction creates a separate cause of action. The article explains that limitation for a recovery suit runs from the date of each deduction, rather than contract completion, where monthly invoices and payments do not establish a running account; pandemic-related limitation extensions cannot revive already time-barred claims. Invoking Article 226 cannot circumvent limitation, delay, or laches. It further notes that purely monetary contractual disputes involving disputed facts and requiring evidence should ordinarily be pursued through a civil suit. Accordingly, such refund claims are described as not maintainable in writ jurisdiction and liable to dismissal.
Writ petitions seeking recovery of contractual deductions may be barred by limitation where each deduction creates a separate cause of action. The article explains that limitation for a recovery suit runs from the date of each deduction, rather than contract completion, where monthly invoices and payments do not establish a running account; pandemic-related limitation extensions cannot revive already time-barred claims. Invoking Article 226 cannot circumvent limitation, delay, or laches. It further notes that purely monetary contractual disputes involving disputed facts and requiring evidence should ordinarily be pursued through a civil suit. Accordingly, such refund claims are described as not maintainable in writ jurisdiction and liable to dismissal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
