Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
By not making refund within time limit prescribed by law i.e. within three months, the Refund Officer has violated law and, therefore, when the department itself made the direct credit as late as on 28.03.2013, the present officer has treated him as defaulter within the meaning of section 30 (2) forgetting that the Refund Officer had himself violated the law. Thus, the Refund Officer as well the concerned Assistant Commissioner both have put the petitioner to a double whammy. - HC
By not making refund within time limit prescribed by law i.e. within three months, the Refund Officer has violated law and, therefore, when the department itself made the direct credit as late as on 28.03.2013, the present officer has treated him as defaulter within the meaning of section 30 (2) forgetting that the Refund Officer had himself violated the law. Thus, the Refund Officer as well the concerned Assistant Commissioner both have put the petitioner to a double whammy. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
