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 of export duty allegedly collected from an SEZ developer despite a court stay is discussed as not being subject to the ordinary limitation period where the claimant first pursued the SEZ authority and then filed before customs as directed. The text states that, following invalidation of the underlying levy, rejection solely as time-barred was unsustainable. It also explains that unjust enrichment did not apply where the SEZ developer was the ultimate buyer, used the steel to establish the SEZ, did not resell it or use it to manufacture saleable goods, and supporting contractor and Chartered Accountant certifications showed that the duty burden was not passed to customers. Consequential refund relief was granted.
Refund of export duty allegedly collected from an SEZ developer despite a court stay is discussed as not being subject to the ordinary limitation period where the claimant first pursued the SEZ authority and then filed before customs as directed. The text states that, following invalidation of the underlying levy, rejection solely as time-barred was unsustainable. It also explains that unjust enrichment did not apply where the SEZ developer was the ultimate buyer, used the steel to establish the SEZ, did not resell it or use it to manufacture saleable goods, and supporting contractor and Chartered Accountant certifications showed that the duty burden was not passed to customers. Consequential refund relief was granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
